meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_06052017_17-0577
|
Speaker 4: I think it was 577 for good.
Speaker 6: That's correct.
Speaker 2: KELLEY Oh, that's right. Resolution 577 for a question. Councilman Ortega, sorry about that.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask someone from DIA if they could come up. This is a contract in the amount of $65 million to perform federally required quality assurance inspections and special inspections on maintenance and capital improvement projects at DIA. And, Aaron, thank you for for being here to answer my question. We have a. Used to be public works. It's part of our community planning and development that has all of our city inspectors that do inspections on typically all of our city projects. So what my question is, is. What is done by. This contract that is not done by our city inspectors.
Speaker 1: Sure. So there's. Or mandated by the FAA to have special types of inspectors and to check the work of the contractors on these particular projects. A lot of the concrete, for example, that's used on the runways is a very special type of concrete. It needs to be laid a special way in a timely manner. And so these special inspectors are trained to deal with these kinds of projects that are not seen anywhere else in the city.
Speaker 6: So are city inspectors also involved in inspecting some of these same projects? So we're having to inspections done on some of this work.
Speaker 1: They're looking for two different types of things. But yes, we do have two different types of inspectors on these projects. So these are specialized inspectors and making sure that these contractors are following the specifications. Exactly. And the city inspectors are more looking for code requirements that are being met.
Speaker 6: Do we anticipate utilizing the full 65 million over the five year time frame of the contract?
Speaker 1: It's a maximum contract amount of 65 million, so it's possible, but we don't have to spend all of that money. It's an up to amount.
Speaker 6: But with all the construction projects coming down the pike.
Speaker 1: We do have a large amount of construction painted.
Speaker 6: We may use a good part of it. Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Black, will you please put council bills? 33, 85 and four or 542 on the floor. Sorry about that.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and AECOM Technical Services, Inc. concerning professional services at Denver International Airport.
Approves a five-year contract with AECOM in the amount of $65 million to perform federally required quality assurance inspections and special inspections on maintenance and capital improvement projects at Denver International Airport (201628929). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-26-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 5-24-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05222017_17-0605
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. We have another proclamation this evening. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please read Proclamation 605?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I have another wonderful organization to give a proclamation to. Whereas in celebrating the American Public Works Association 2017 theme of Public Works connects us. We recognize that Denver Public works through its 1300 employees, consistently delivers safe, high quality, cost effective services to the citizens of Denver. And. Whereas, as our city grows, Denver Public Works connects more people with a strategic vision focusing on smart growth and making Denver more sustainable, multimodal, attractive, resilient and transparent. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works employees are integral to our residents everyday lives delivering services that include street sweeping, recycling and refuse collection, pothole repairs, street paving and the mobility program supported by top notch vehicle and equipment technicians. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works enhances the quality of life in our city by managing and maintaining public infrastructure, including streets, alleys, drainage ways, sewers, bridges, traffic signals, street markings, signage, and on street parking and contracting and procurement and car sharing and perm and permitting programs. Yes meat to meet the needs of the public. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works Works continues to make significant contributions to our city's built environment managing the planning, design and construction of public infrastructure and new transportation options that help people get around town with greater ease. And. Whereas, public works would like to honor. The loss of Steve Hersey. Director of Traffic Operations and city traffic engineer since 2013. Who's out of the box thinking and level headed approach will make him honorary employee of the Year posthumously. His bright light will shine forever in our hearts. And. WHEREAS, the Council specifically recognizes and congratulates the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year for 2016 for their achievements, David Shore of Capital Projects Management. Amber Zollo, Finance and Administration. Robert Jergens. Fleet Management. Joe Purvis. Right of way. Enforcement permitting. Bill Gordon right of way services. Heather Burk. Office of the Executive Director. Kyle Smith. Solid Waste. Waste Management. Tim. Bone Street. Maintenance. Brant Thomas. Transportation and Mobility. Tara Nguyen Wastewater Management. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council designates the week of May 21st through May 27th, 2017, as Public Works Week in Denver and congratulates the Denver Public Works 2016 Employees of the Year for their outstanding contributions to the Department and city. And Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation. And they copies hereof be forwarded to Denver Public Works and the ten public works employees listed above.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I move that proclamation. 605 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It's been moved. And second, it comes by members of Council Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd first like to acknowledge that Steve, Hershey's wife, Becky, and children Daniel and Liz are in the chambers this evening. Thank you for coming. Thank you for letting us have Steve Hersey for a while. And let's give a hand for all the work that Steve Hersi did for us. I remember him so well and there was so many times that he helped me with constituents and constituent needs and he will be greatly missed. Each of us depends upon public works so much because it is the agency that we council members call the most often. There are several of you on my speed dial and I know you feel that like, Oh my gosh, is this where she calling me again? But the fact and the list of the things they do. Are exactly what we get. Most of our constituent calls about public works, of course, is the historical agency of cities. It is what the people think when they think of a city. It's people who plow the streets and pave the streets and pick up the trash and and take care of the infrastructure. It's the thing that city citizens. Think about. Worry about and care about. A lot. So I'm so glad to be able to make a proclamation to make this public works week. It should be public works year. Our public works department is so responsive and I couldn't be more grateful to them for the service that they give to the citizens of Denver and to the council members.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Espinosa. So I would think just dealing with me would sort of merit getting into the chart, the list of employees of the year. But that said, very, very few of the people that I have sort of day to day contact with or not day to day, but routine contact with in northwest Denver made that list. And so all I want to say is I know how outstanding they are and how much of a joy it is actually to work with the people who come out time and time again, look at our situations, come up with solutions, address those situations. Sometimes the timetable isn't what I'd like it to be, but the everything is mindful, thoughtful and and comprehensive. And so since I don't see those names on here, I'm going to give the people that are here the benefit of the doubt, because if you're better than they are, you guys are awesome. So thank you all for your work. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman.
Speaker 4: Thank you. It was so much so interesting Saturday that we hear the mayor's cabinet, the community and all the departments are there. And everybody who came up to represent the communities, they may say, where's public works? Where's parking? Where's traffic? I want to talk to these folks. They were the most revered department. There wasn't.
Speaker 5: And is just.
Speaker 4: So, so helpful to me and to all of us on the that the public works is so supportive and helping us with the issues is the day to day issues we have in the city. So I'm just so proud that this proclamation is coming forward and and also we're going to miss diversity to her. Steve is so such a cool guy. And and he went out with me several times and would talk to residents and say, let's fix this problem. It wasn't just wait next year, let's fix the problem. So he was a real action oriented guy and we're really all going to miss him. So congratulations to all the employees are being honored tonight and to George Delaney and being interim director. And I know George do a great job. And so thank you again for all you do for us.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Brooks. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, for bringing forward this very important proclamation. And in my short time in working with public works employees, I have always found them to be professional, dedicated and above all, caring. They care about our public safety. They will tell you straight up if something will work or won't work. And let's move on to the next item on the list, and I appreciate that, because then that enables me to educate and communicate with my constituents around why something won't work. And I've found that above and beyond anything most Denver residents love to be weekend and evening traffic planners. They they see an intersection. They I've even gotten Google Maps that they have kind of redrawn what public works employees have suggested. And you know I appreciate that give and take with public works employees and with our residents. And I have to definitely you know, I share Councilman Espinosa, you know, there's a few folks that that I work with very closely, and I don't see them on the list. And so I've got to commend the ten that are on that list, because you all have got to be rock stars. And and congratulations for this honor. And on a very personal note, you know, Steve has impacted my time on city council, one, by being so diligent and careful in his thoughtful recommendations for 56th Avenue. And the accident counts. And and just really wanting to make sure that whatever solution gets implemented is a responsible and intentional solution. And so I really appreciate Steve's thoughtfulness on that. And then secondly, I will never forget Steve coming out to a community meeting at a local school and we had a small group of residents and, you know, Steve walks in the door and I think, oh, geez, okay, he's here for this meeting. And, you know, he stayed the entire time. And we did small breakout sessions. And once again, you know, public works employees and just Steve's dedication and love for his job and his love of public safety will never be forgotten because the things that he has implemented throughout this city, his legacy lives on through our traffic signals, through our intersections that are safer. I mean, he definitely touched all of Denver and the residents who will never know his name or never know what he did. But we know that he dedicated his life to making sure that our citizens in Denver are safer. So thank you very much. Thank you, President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilwoman Sussman for bringing this forward. David, Amber, Robert Jo, Bill, Heather Kyle, Tim Brant and Tara. You all represent the many, many employees of public works that make us all proud of the great city that we live in. For the quality of the work that you do in making it a beautiful city, a city that everybody now desires to want to live here. Right, because they're coming here in droves. But we all owe you a debt of gratitude for the work that you do day in and day out that make each of us look good . Yeah, we're. We're knocking on your doors and calling you and sending you lots of emails to take care of the different problems that constituents bring to us. But you all help us make those things happen. And, you know, just keep this as a city that that everybody desires to be in. I know that many of us have folks on a first name basis. You know, our constituents have to dial three, one, one. Some of us are told to go to the city council's 311 number, but most of us go directly to the folks in the field that we know on a first name basis, because we know you all are the ones that make things happen. And I just want to say thank you for the work that you all do. And to Steve, Hershey's family, thank you for being here. We know that when anybody serves the public, no matter what role, capacity you serve in, your family sometimes takes I wouldn't say a backseat, but, you know, they they also sort of are in it with with you. And so to his family, his wife and his daughter. Thank you for being here. Thank you for having shared him with us. We appreciate the work that he did as well. And I just want to acknowledge that we now have the new traffic engineer, Justin Schmitz, in the audience with us. And I'm looking forward to following up with you on a problem that we're working together. But again, thank you for the work that you all do day in and day out in the way you represent all of the rest of the public works employees.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. I want to say to all public works, you're going to hear from all the council because they're trying to get their project going right now, but.
Speaker 4: Guzman-Lopez So for the record, I mean every street in West Denver in my district was paved in the last ten years and alleys are on the way. And so I'm not trying to get. I'm just saying thank you. And and I remember this moment and there was a moment. Now, everybody does this because it's cool. But a long time ago, we saw a crew and we brought then-Mayor John Hickenlooper to the district and to a 34 South Main Street right in front of where I grew up and. The streets are. There were terrible men. There were the worst street I had ever seen. And I went through these streets and I and did a tour of the district and him and R.D. and a lot of folks that were part of the administration. And they drove by and John Hickenlooper brings his convertible. I don't know why he brought a convertible to the most rugged part. It was like a four by four, you know, territory. We stop at this address and I said, hey, by the way, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Mayor and I was brand new on council. And I said, These streets haven't been done in about 27 years. Nobody has touched a street in 27 years. And he said, Oh, come on, you got to be kidding me. And I said, No, no, no, no. Open the door. I stopped here for a reason. He looks out. I see seals initials. Those are mine. I did that when I was five years old. I said, Believe me when I say that nobody's came out here since then. He looked at me and our public works director was Bill Vidal, and he said, We got to we got to do something about this. We went out there. Two years later, that street was paved. And the best thing about it, colleagues, is that it was somebody from my neighborhood paving that street who grew up on that block . And those of you who know what it's like to pave streets, it's 200 degree weather because they had to do it in the summer so that it gets together. But it's also there's the heat of the asphalt. It's the machinery. It's it's it's an art and a science, just like earlier. And my hat's off to you all. Because you people don't realize that that's what makes neighborhoods. That's what turns them around. That's what we the one that's a such a big quality of life issue. And it's not just that. It's the striving. It's everything that embodies the public works department. Everything that you do touches the lives of folks in such a great way. It is the essence of our city. And and let me just say this. Yesterday, I spoke to my daughter's class and they talked about civics, and they're a bunch of fourth graders. And one of them asked, well, why is it important, you know, why? We were talking about the importance of respecting people in uniform. They were talking about the firefighters and the police. And I said, Yeah, but they're still mourning. Oh, yeah. The EMT. Yeah, yeah. But the men and women who throw your trash. The men and women who go out there and fix the potholes. Also also the uniforms that you have to respect because they are also public servants. And so when we say that I want to get back to that day in our society, we respect everybody in a uniform. But it's easy to respect and I want to make sure that we do that. I mean, we are doing that tonight. But but just on behalf of our district. Thank you. Our streets are done because of you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to echo congratulations to the ten employees of the year for 2016. And I'm sitting here wondering how the heck you pick out ten out of the Department of Public Works. You know, I've said numerous times that my friends ask me, what's the big surprise I have since taken this job? And I always tell them that the biggest surprise to me is how competent and hard working our city employees are. Because when I when I was just another taxpayer out there in the neighborhoods, I'm thinking, these people don't know what they're doing. They're overpaid. They're lazy. And you get in a little bit behind the curtain and you realize they're not lazy, they're hardworking. The department's understaffed. They're they're underpaid compared to what they could probably be making out in the private sector. And so thank you all very much for the work that you do on a daily basis. There's no department in the city that touches just about every family in the city and county of Denver several times a month like Public Works does. And it really is that day to day thing that that is our quality of life. I mean, we talk about big events and dramatic buildings as important to making Denver a great city. And what makes Denver a great place to live is that, yeah, we're getting our roads paved and the trash gets picked up regularly. And if there's a problem, you know, you have the ability to access your government. And I'll, I think, congratulate Justin on taking over some new responsibilities. But I have Justin was in the office last week for a just a kind of a catch up on things. And so we had our board where, as you all know, traffic is is one of the biggest problems in the city. And Justin and his people are getting deluged with pleas for help. And so we have a whiteboard. And I think we listed about 15 or so, you know, situations that we had thrown on Justin's list. And I turn turn to my aide, Brant. And I said, you do realize that Justin has at least 11 of these lists for every district, so thank you for what you do. We understand the challenges of the job and its demands. And as far as I'll add, my respect and celebration for the life of Steve Hersey. And I never got to know him well enough. And I say that my impression of him was he was a very gentle man. When I had questions for him, he was always available and responsive. But as I said, I never got to know him well enough. Talking to someone about his memorial, I find that we shared a common fondness for the music of the Grateful Dead, and that one of the songs played at his memorial was one of my favorites , Broke Down Palace. So I did took a few minutes this weekend and put that song on the box and thought of Steve. So thank you for loaning Steve to us. His service was important and appreciated and will be remembered for a long time. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. What makes this city work is public works at the foundation at the core, everything from mobility streets, trash and essential sanitation, which is a public health issue. Wastewater. What makes the city work is public works. And I want to thank I just want to join everybody else in thanking the public works crew that for all the work that they do so efficiently and for being so responsive to our constituents needs and requests. There I want to echo or I want to corroborate what Councilman Cashin just said about Steve. I got to know Steve when he was working at DOT for I think about 20 years, a little over 20 years at sea, Don. He was the region six and then Region one traffic engineer. And when I was covering transportation, I would have plenty of opportunity to talk to him. And I can tell you, Councilman Cashman, he was a he in my in my estimation, was just a not only a competent engineer, but a stellar engineer and a wonderful man to work with and to get to know. And he will be missed a lot. And just in the just an already has my record I didn't request a project I requested, not a project. Keep those flashing yellow arrows out of my district. Thank you. Someone one knows how to drive them.
Speaker 1: Public works. You see what I mean? It's just getting going. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 5: You know, I.
Speaker 4: Want to echo so much of what my colleagues have already said, and as as they were going.
Speaker 5: Through and talking, you know, I.
Speaker 6: Realized when.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Gilmore was talking about constituents coming up with Google Maps, that.
Speaker 5: Solved kind of problems because of their traffic engineering degrees that they don't have.
Speaker 4: Realized. It's not just constituents who do.
Speaker 5: That, because I'm pretty sure that either my natural resource degree.
Speaker 6: Or my degree in nonprofit.
Speaker 5: Management must also qualify me because I have provided Google Maps to plenty of public works staffers saying, Can't we just solve it like this?
Speaker 4: And Councilman Espinosa might think that he's the biggest handful to handle up.
Speaker 5: Here, but I'm sure that every single one of us have been a handful for.
Speaker 4: Someone. At some.
Speaker 5: Point, as we muddle our.
Speaker 4: Way through things that we we don't have degrees and training.
Speaker 5: In. And and everyone.
Speaker 4: That I have worked with in public works is so understanding and so patient with me and I'm sure with all of my colleagues. As you walk us through how these things work and the parts of it that we don't understand.
Speaker 5: And work for our.
Speaker 4: Constituents to come up with solutions that really do work.
Speaker 5: And I'm so thankful for that. I was even remembering just a couple of weeks ago when I was out looking at a street with Justin and with Andrew.
Speaker 4: And as we were talking through this problem and potential solutions, and then I was like, You know what? We could do this thing and I don't even know what it's called, but I've seen it around. It's like the stripey thing.
Speaker 5: And they very patiently nodded their heads and oh, what a great idea. And then handed me the printouts that already had that stripey thing on it in that place that they had already decided was the solution. And so for, you know, just for.
Speaker 4: All of the hard work.
Speaker 5: And for for dealing and putting up with us and it was such grace, I just wanted.
Speaker 4: To say thank you and.
Speaker 5: Congratulations.
Speaker 4: To to our.
Speaker 5: Public works employees of the year to rise to the top of a tremendous.
Speaker 4: Group of individuals is really outstanding. And to Steve.
Speaker 5: Who was an all star among that.
Speaker 4: Group and will be sorely, sorely missed. Thank you for everything that all of you do. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I wasn't going to say anything, but I didn't want to be the only person who didn't acknowledge you. Public works. And I hope everyone I work with I say thank you to every time I talk to you because I appreciate you all very, very much. So I hope you know that. And to the Hersey family, I was working on a big project with Steve and and we are devastated. And you have all of my sympathies. And I do have a little memento for you that I will mail to your house. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when your phone hangs up in the public works office from a city councilperson and things that are said. We just appreciate you all and the the issues you have to deal with coming from council and the mayor's office and all those other things. You guys just do a great job. And I got a chance to attend Steve Harris's memorial, and I didn't get a chance to say this, but Steve actually has had a big impact on me, and it was because he put a light up right next to the Kohl Middle School that not a lot of people know about on MLK and a group of Spanish speaking moms organized to get this going. And, you know, public works studied it and studied it and finally decided to implement it. And Steve said, I want to I want to go to Cole to talk about this light. And I was like, Steve, you don't really need to in this African-American, Latino community, it could be, you know, engineers don't, you know. And he came and won the whole crowd over just his gentleness, just his way to explain what was going on. And it was just one of those powerful moments where you just say, this is more than just an engineer. This is a good man. And so I am forever grateful. And for him and Miss Becky, thank you for lending him to us. And and Liz, I lost a father last year, and so I'm with you. But he was a great man. And you should be very proud. And thank you all. Public works for all the hard work that you guys do. All right. Madam Secretary, Raquel Susman.
Speaker 2: Hi, black clerk. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I heard in. Cashman can reach Lopez. New Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please close voting, announce the results. 1212 1112 ICE Council Bill 605 has passed. Madam Secretary, I see 11 ice up here. Did we miss something?
Speaker 2: Do you? Oh, I do.
Speaker 1: Okay. Oh, you miss me? Okay, great. Uh, six or five has been adopted. Councilwoman Sussman, is there anyone you want to bring up?
Speaker 8: You bet. Mr. President, I'd like to invite a long time friend and colleague and our new interim director of public works, George Delaney.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, and thank you to you all for this proclamation tonight. And let me assure you first that we love getting your phone calls.
Speaker 8: Oh, sure.
Speaker 0: We love the challenges and the opportunities that you present us with.
Speaker 6: And we we smile about them and gladly go on about trying to fix those issues for you on a regular basis. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the 1300 men and women who make up your Department of Public Works, their commitment to making the quality of life in Denver, what it is, and to improve it every day. You know, we're experiencing unprecedented growth in Denver. The demand for those services by our folks in public works increases almost daily. And these men and women rise to that occasion. They rise to the challenge and I believe are successful in meeting those those challenges. We have several things we can go on and on about the things that public works does. But for instance, the voter approved measure to way we're now paving more streets than we ever have in the past. We are building out our bicycle network every day. We are improving, working to improve pedestrian safety. And with you and the mayors support, we have money now to start filling in gaps in sidewalks so pedestrians have more connectivity along city property to either get to their destination or to transit or what have you. We strive for continuous improvement in public works and I'm several of you. I think you were provided a copy of this week. We produce a plan called Our Smart Plan every year, and the Smart Plan is basically our work plan. It tells you and any citizen what we plan to do on a on an annual basis. But we take it one step further in public works. We actually publish a report card and says, this is what we told you we would do and this is telling you what we did. And if we didn't do everything we told you we would do, we have a reason for that. So that's the kind of accountability that we strive for in public works on a routine basis. Sitting behind me are some of the outstanding employees, managers and directors of public works led by city engineer and Deputy Director Leslie Thomas. I'd like them to stand and be acknowledged for and for and appreciate what they do for us every day. Lastly, I would like to thank you for acknowledging our colleague Steve Hersey in your proclamation tonight. We lost a cherished colleague unexpectedly and his absence cannot go unnoticed. In his role as a city traffic engineer. Steve was a very important part of public works. He is part of our public works family and he will be greatly missed. Clearly, he was a very respected, professional, respected within the ranks of public works, but also respected by you all. And that was very gracious to hear from each one of you regarding Steve. So I want to thank Steve's family for being here tonight. His wife Becky, his daughter Liz, and glad that they were able to hear from each of you, since they've already heard from all of us how much we appreciate it, Steve. So thank you very much. And so with that council, thank you for the proclamation. We appreciate your support. We are always happy and willing to help and recognition of our employees for what they do every day is very, very important to us. So, again, thank you for the proclamation.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating May 21 through May 27 as “Public Works Week in Denver” and Congratulating the Denver Public Works Department’s Ten Employees of the Year for 2016.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05222017_17-0473
|
Speaker 1: For 22. For 23, for 24 for 25 and for 27 for postponement. Is that correct? Okay. I see everybody looking surprised. Okay. Under bills for introduction. Nothing has been called out. Under bills for final consideration. Final consideration. Nothing has been cut up and under pending. Nothing has been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please bring up the first item for 73? Councilwoman, can each please offer your amendment?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 473 be amended in the following particulars on page one. Line 13 strike the number 201733769-00 and replace it with the number 2017-0243.
Speaker 1: Councilman Kennedy, please forgive me. I did not put it on the floor first, so let me put it on the floor. Floor. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put 473 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I move the resolution for 73 be adopted.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved in, seconded Councilwoman each for the good of the order. Can you react again?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 473 be amended in the following particulars on page one, line 13 strike the number 201733769-00 and replace it with the number 2017-0243.
Speaker 1: Great. And that has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment corrects the clerk filing number for the new Exhibit A that deletes an incorrect reference to the Colorado Department of Transportation and adds language to clarify that the activities in this contract were to be performed under the oversight of the city county of Denver and not a court. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Flynn, do you want to ask your question real?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, Councilwoman, this amendment takes care of my question. When I was reading through the the contract earlier, I noticed that it had put this work. It said, under the oversight of Colorado Department of Transportation. And I couldn't quite figure that out what that meant. So when I inquired about it, apparently we had the wrong contract filed with us or I don't know, Lisa maybe is can someone explain to us how this happened and does this require us, Mr. Broadwell, to hold it over a week or can we adopt? We can adopt it tonight. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Lisa Lemley, division of Real Estate. When Councilman Flynn called me, I don't know that I can explain other than it sounds like the wrong version that had been corrected did not save the correction and that's what was uploaded. Okay. So now I apologize for any error confusion that that caused.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. That was my guy. Looks like.
Speaker 1: He's good. Thank you, Lisa. Oh, Councilman Espinosa. Just because I can't help but get over the irony of of sort of being mixed in with something that has absolutely nothing to do with I-70. I'm sorry. I just had to make that comment. Okay. We have it's been moved and seconded or any other questions. Comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Can eat Lopez.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: New Ortega. I assessment.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 2: Black clerk.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Flynn, I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I. Cashman. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please close the voting and ask for results. But there we go to advice. 12 Eyes. The resolution for 73 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, we need a motion to adopt as amended.
Speaker 8: That was what my question was, I think. Were we supposed to have a motion to adopt? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution, resolution 473, be adopted as amended.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second at Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Can each. LOPEZ All right. New Ortega. Specimen black. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I. Cashman Mr. President, i.
Speaker 1: Political voting announced results.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes 12.
Speaker 1: Eyes resolution for 73 has been adopted as amended. Madam Secretary, will you go to the next item and bring up 501 resolution? 501509509 I'm sorry. 5094 Councilman Flynn. Councilman Flynn, go ahead.
|
Resolution
|
AS AMENDED a resolution approving a proposed Escrow Funding Agreement between the City and County of Denver and H.C. Peck and Associates, Inc. to perform escrow services for the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems Project.
Approves a three-year nine-month $15 million contract with H.C. Peck and Associates, Inc. for relocation reimbursement to owners and tenants impacted by the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems project including moving, storage, deposits, and other relocations costs in Council District 9 (FINAN-201733769-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-12-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 4-25-17. Amended 5-22-17 to correct the clerk filing number for the new Exhibit A that deletes an incorrect reference to the Colorado Department of Transportation and adds language to clarify that the activities are to be performed under the oversight of the City and County of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05222017_17-0421
|
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And I think we got the affirmative from council staff. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next items on our screen? I believe that's for 21. For 22. For 23. You can just put up for 21. Councilman Espinosa Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. President. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, I'm calling these resolutions out to postpone consideration until the next regularly scheduled meeting of council on Monday, June 5th, 2017. All right. No motion is required. Do any? Yeah, we have a comment. Members of council or councilman can each.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I was just curious, since we did have these committees in these bills in committee and had a fairly lengthy conversation about them, if you might share with the body what your concern was so we can be aware.
Speaker 1: That's right. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, happy to. The explanation to council for the need to increase from sub $500,000 contracts to $202.5 million contracts was in part because the contracts capture job on projects that have yet to be determined, yet alone, let alone put on a ballot measure or voted on by the people of Denver. Moreover, the contracts include indeterminate amounts of money for the Platt to Park Hill project and projects for the North and NDDC that have the potential to consume large amounts of the funds if approved. I have requested from Environmental, Health, Public Works and Parks and Rec their estimates for the abatement projects in their existing 2017 work plan and future 2018 work plans that are that they are currently making budget requests for right now. So that I can know what the estimated fiscal need is for the existing facility work planned abatement contracts covered by the general fund versus that what is being made available to massive projects like Plant to Park Hill, which quite honestly should be contracted separately in a separate council bill, not an amendment to a council resolution. Fortunately for everyone, the postponement tonight provides two weeks for that information to be generated and reviewed by myself and my colleagues. Okay. Are there any other members of council that have any comments since this request does not delay consideration of the of these resolutions past the 30 day review date of June 12? Your request is granted and consideration of resolutions for 21. For 22. For 23. For 24. For 25. For 26, 27 have been postponed to Monday, June 5th. All right. We have no other items called out all of the bills for introduction or to publish. We are now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and that you will need a to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call on and I don't want a separate vote. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 8: 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. Resolution 540547599466. 495509. 538. 546. 533. 535. 596. That's the resolutions and then the bills of all of series 17 nine 2017 472474396 456. 4634705 11 523. And that's the bills.
Speaker 1: Great. Well done. It. It has been moved in. Second it. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 8: Black Eye.
Speaker 2: Clerk. Hi, Espinosa.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn I Gilmore I Katherine Kennedy Lopez knew Ortega I assessment i Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I Please close the voting and announce the results. 1212 Eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a one hour courtesy of public hearing on Council Bill 513, amending the sentencing structure by modifying the general penalties and creating a tiered system, a tiered penalty system
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and JKS Industries, LLC to extend the term and add funds to provide on call asbestos, lead and mold abatement services.
Amends a contract with JKS Industries, LLC to add $2 million for a new contract total in the amount of $2,480,000 and to add two years for a new end date of 8-3-19, for nuisance abatement actions for residential properties and environmentally regulated building material abatement and demolition activities of city-owned facilities including those associated with the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative and Platte to Parkhill projects (ENVHL-201415783). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-12-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 5-10-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza called out this resolution at the Monday, May 22, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, June 5, 2017.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05222017_17-0513
|
Speaker 1: Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments again to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put Council Bill 513 as amended on the floor?
Speaker 8: I move that council bill 513 as amended be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second at the public hearing for council bill 513 is open. May we have the staff report? Chad Sublette from the city attorney's office. Welcome, Chad.
Speaker 10: Thank you. This. Can you hear me all right? Yeah. Okay. First, I want to thank you, Mr. President, the body, for taking this important piece of legislation out. The last time that we looked at sentencing, comprehensive sentencing reform within the city and county was in 1993. And over the last 24 years, we've seen a significant change, not just in the types of crimes we see in our municipal courts, but how we best react to those crimes and how we deal with those. The legislation before you the great thing about it is this has truly been a working document for the last three months that we developed a concept working with our stakeholders, but have continued to develop this and develop this as this move forward. It accomplishes three significant things. The first is comprehensive criminal justice reform. We're bringing proportionality to sentencing right now for the majority of crimes that are committed. The maximum sentence is 365 days. So looking at the different types of violations and crimes that we have and bringing some proportionality that. The other thing we're doing is continuing to hold violent offenders accountable. That as we've seen in the in the public hearings that we've had and the discussions we have, that we have some significantly violent offenders that we deal with a municipal court. So continue to have the tool to deal with those offenders was important. And then also addressing collateral concerns for our immigrant and for our immigrant population that as we as we've all learned there are, can be significant consequences for violations of our municipal ordinance. So also trying to address that. First, I want to talk briefly about the proportionality piece. So what we've proposed creates three different layers of sentencing. The first is are is our general penalty provision, which would move from 365 days to 300 days. And that general penalty would encompass the vast majority of our of our ordinance violations. As you can imagine, we have thousands and thousands of potential ordinance violations. So having the general penalty moving to 300 will address a significant portion of those. We have what we call class two offenses or these are kind of our quality of life crimes that unfortunately impact some of our most vulnerable population here in Denver. And moving the maximum sentence for those crimes from 365 days all the way down to 65. I just want to be clear, when we talk about these numbers, sometimes we'll hear 365 and think everybody's getting sentenced to 365 days. But just to be clear, these are maximum possible penalties. And so moving that maximum to 60 days. These would affect offenses like sitting or lying in the public right away, urinating or defecating in public or park after hours. There are additional ones, but those are just some examples of those quality of life crimes. And then we create a kind of a Class one offense. And these are violent crimes, which a third of subsequent domestic violence, sex crimes, crimes with serious bodily injury. These would be in that class one offense with the maximum possible penalty standard 365 days. Here, I think it's important to understand we're not creating any new crimes. These are sentencing enhancers. So it's not like an officer will be able to go out and write a ticket for serious bodily harm. It will come to us, as it always has been, as an assault. Our prosecutors will look at it, and if they determine that it meets the necessary elements, then they would ask for that enhancement up to 360 365 days from 300 days. Another very important piece under that class one offense is creating the enhancer for a hate or a bias based crime. This is really filling a regulatory gap that we have right now. Right now we have a state hate crime or bias based crime bill or statute, but it is limited to a very small number of crimes. So, for example, we see hate crimes that might be defacement of public property. And this would allow us to prosecute or to enhance the the defacement to a level one offense. Hate crime. And as we talked about these issues and I'm sure you will hear later on the reason that hate crimes are in that bucket of class one offenses is because the impact it has on our community as a whole that within a crime of hate is carried out. It impacts our entire community. It it victimizes our entire community. So that's why the decisions but hate crimes in that in that type one or that class one offense was made in terms of the collateral impact on immigration population are immigrants in our community as we've all learned and continued to learn. Immigration law can be complicated at times. But one of the things that we know is that if it is a crime of moral turpitude, somebody is convicted of a crime of moral turpitude and faces a potential sentence, not that they serve that sentence, but the potential sentence of 365 days. They can, if they're here legally as a legal permanent resident, as on a work visa or on a student visa, they could be eligible for deportation. So that's a crime of moral turpitude. It's any crime with a potential potential sentence of 365 days. So if you're in the park after hours, you're arrested, you're convicted of that, have a potential sentence of 365 days. That could be viewed as a crime of moral turpitude and you could be subject to deportation. The second kind of area that we see that is that if you have been here and you're applying for permanent status of some of some sort and you have one of these convictions of moral turpitude, it can eliminate your defense to removal or your ability to become a resident. So the biggest area we see impacting is those those people that are here legally removing that that deportation threat. Another part of the bill is on hate crimes, as we will collect data on that and report back to you. And additionally, we are committed to working with our stakeholders to look at what additional data is going to be important when we look at type one offenders and or type two infractions. What about that? Do we want do we want to be able to track and report back to you? And I also think it's just important to recognize that this was a piece of legislation not just brought by the city attorney's office, but supported by a presiding judge, by a presiding judge and all 17 judges. So I want to thank you for taking this legislation up tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. We have six speakers this evening. I'm going to ask that you come to the front bench and we're a start with I'm going to call all the speakers and you guys can come up. Dora Lee Larsen. Amber Dower. Rosa Via. Julie Bench Wicker, Scott Levin and Ginny Santos. Doralee Larson, you are first. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: Thank you, counsel, for this opportunity. I feel so honored and privileged to have been working in Denver specifically on the issue of domestic violence prevention for over 30 some years. I started when I was 15 and that never gets old, right? This is specifically talking about a sentence enhancer. And to put it in context, I am only supposed to give my name and address and all that stuff.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Doralee Larson, I'm a Denver resident and I live at 2275 Fairfax Street, 80207. So I'll start over again. I'm the executive director of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Coordinating Council. And we monitor we manage another project called the Denver Metro of Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee, which, by the way, is soon to become the Colorado Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board. When Governor Hickenlooper is available to actually sign the bill, it's already passed both houses. So we're proud of that. In that context, I can tell you that in 2015, Denver had one domestic violence related fatality, which I think is something that we could be very, very proud of. Unfortunately, in 2016, we had 14 domestic violence related fatalities. Now, I really hate to be such a buzzkill, but I think the good news is that we're able to work with partners like the Denver City Attorney's Office in the Denver DA's office, but the city attorney's office specifically to change that. So, again, looking at a sentence enhancer, I truly believe that more than a few of these perpetrators regarding the fatalities in 2016 likely had city ordinance violations in their history. And it's a little it's more than a little absurd to think that the same offenders who abuse their partners may be sentenced to the same consequences of someone who urinates in public or has a dog off leash. Some of these incidents involve strangulation. Now, that's not to be confused with choking. Choking is an internal act. Strangulation is an external act, but that's a very, very serious behavior to actually know about. Now, we are probably the most researched professionals in Denver on the issue of lethality. We know lethality assessment, and there's no such thing as a minor domestic violence incident. With that said, the Denver city attorney's office has a remarkable record of taking these crimes very seriously. And so I implore you to support the restructuring of these the this municipal code violations and having proportionately sentence in sentence enhancing for anyone who doesn't think that domestic violence affects them. You could be dead wrong. And again, I don't mean to be such a buzzkill, but that's just the reality of the situation. So thank you for this opportunity.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Larson. All right, Amber Dower, you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: Thank you for this opportunity. Again, my name is Amber Dower. I'm a program director and victim advocate at the Domestic Violence Initiative here in Denver, Colorado. I live up in Evergreen, a970 Soda Creek Drive. Doralee is one of my personal heroes in the domestic violence world. She is one of the most knowledgeable women. So I'm going to speak specifically to the advocacy portion of the minimum sentence of 30 days for the third domestic violence offense. And the importance.
Speaker 8: Of that issue is that that gives us time as advocates to strategically plan a way for our clients to leave their abusive relationship.
Speaker 3: To find housing, to find a job, to move their.
Speaker 8: Health care providers, whether it's in a different part of the state or out of state.
Speaker 3: And that will allow them to leave safely and ideally permanently.
Speaker 8: Whereas right now, if domestic.
Speaker 3: Violence occurs and the perpetrator is immediately released, we don't have that time to plan for them to enroll and address confidentiality to get somewhere where they're safe and covered. And that increases their danger for lethality greatly. So thank you very much. I'm going to keep it short and sweet. I appreciate the time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr.. Rosa Veal.
Speaker 8: My name is Roosevelt Hill Garcia, and I'm here to support.
Speaker 3: This.
Speaker 8: Issue in you know, I work a lot with a lot of victims that sometimes.
Speaker 3: They don't want to come front.
Speaker 8: Just because they know the perpetrator.
Speaker 3: Is going to get out right away. So to me, they need to stay there and. Pay the consequences for consequential acts. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Julie Bench Wicker. Sorry if I mispronounced that.
Speaker 8: Great. Mr. President. Council. Good evening. Thanks for listening. My name is Julie Barnes Schweikert. I live at 1146 Timber Vail Trail Highlands Ranch, Colorado, and I work at Disability Law, Colorado. I am the Medicare Medicaid Ombudsman for the State of Colorado. And as I said, my program is housed at Disability Law, Colorado. In my ombudsman capacity, I provide assistance and advocacy to individuals who have both Medicare and Medicaid, most commonly referred to as duals. Approximately 70% of my jewels are elderly and the remaining 30% have significant disabilities. Most, if not all, of these individuals meet the definition of at risk adult. Prior to being hired as the Medicare and Medicaid ombudsmen, I worked for nearly 20 years at a community center board or CCP, providing case management services to adults and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I spent seven of those years overseeing a team of investigators. Our charge was to investigate allegations of abuse, neglect and exploitation of our customers with A.D.D.. Unfortunately, we were always busy. According to the 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, nearly half of people with IBD who are victims of sexual abuse will experience ten or more abusive incidents . Violent victimization for persons with disability is more than twice the rate of persons without disabilities. Serious violent victimization for persons with disabilities was more than three times the rate of persons without. Only 3% of sexual violence. I'm sorry. Sexual abuse cases involving people with A.D.D. were ever reported. So why are our folks with A.D.D. victimized at these alarming rates? Well, many of these individuals are completely dependent upon their caregivers for food, medication and personal care. One of our severe abuse survivors reported that the ongoing boost allowed the ongoing abuse to continue because her perpetrator told her that she'd end up in a nursing home if she told. People with A.D.D. are also often, often, often isolated and segregated. Many have communication challenges, making it even more difficult to report their socialize, to accept being touched by anyone, especially someone named staff, because they are often viewed as asexual and many are not provided with basic sex education. And as such, they are unable to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate contact. Some are unable to conceive the fact that someone they know may harm them. Sadly, however, caregivers are more often than not to be the perpetrators of these abuse of this abuse. Research suggests that nearly 99% of abusers are known and trusted by the victims who have it. By my estimation, I oversaw several hundred investigations of abuse and neglect of at risk adults in my seven years. Ms..
Speaker 1: Bunch. Your time is up. I'm sorry.
Speaker 8: Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Scott Levin.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. My name is Scott Levin. I am the director of the Anti-Defamation League at 1120 Lincoln Street in Denver, Colorado. I come here today to ask you to pass this piece of legislation and especially the bias motivated section of it. As I explained to the committee hearing, the ADL feels particularly interested in these hate crimes type statutes. We were the progenitor about 30 years ago with the draft model, the model hate crimes acts that are now adopted across the country in so many places. And we're so pleased to see it here in Denver. As Mr. Sublette said, bias motivated crimes or as they're colloquially known as hate crimes, are message crimes. Their crimes where it's not just targeting a victim, but it's targeting an entire community that's just like that victim, telling that victim that they're not welcome. And people that look like them, that act like them or have the same identity as they do, are not welcome. So by passing legislation like this, it's sending a great counter message which is saying, we care about our communities and we want to make sure that everybody feels welcome and this is a particularly precious time to be able to do this. From the information that we've been tracking in my conversations and the conversations that my office has had with the Denver Police Department. There was a 30% increase in hate crimes just over the past year. There was a 62.5% increase over the past two years. We also measure anti-Semitic incidents that have been going on in Colorado as a whole, including in Denver. We had 150% more hate incidents against Jewish people in this past year. And this crosses in Denver, quite unfortunately. Last year, you might remember in April, during the time of Passover, a very important holiday to the Jewish people in Virginia, Vail. In that neighborhood, there were two or three blocks where three dozen cars were vandalized. There was houses where things were painted on garages, and there was painting all over the street that included swastikas and statements of things like kill Jews and many other racist comments that were put forth. So by passing legislation like this. I commend you for what you're doing. I commend the city attorney's office for bringing this forward and really appreciate your voting yes to send that message that people are welcome in the city and county of Denver no matter what their identity might be. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. 11. Lastly, we have Jennie Santos.
Speaker 3: When has nudges. Good evening. My name is Jenny Santos. I'm a legal victim advocate at Servicios de la Raza, where our area code is able to offer. However, I'm a Globeville resident from eight or to one six. The reason I'm here today, I'm asking you to look at this bill and to support the resentencing of the bill . As a legal victim advocate, I multiple times. All the clients that I see often are actually all the clients that I see are victims. However, we're asking you to do two reforms so there could be some habitual domestic violence account offenders so that they could receive the maximum sentence of 365 days. And also for individuals or at risk adults that are homeless or mentally ill, they shouldn't be punished, but instead provided rehabilitation support services such as housing. And the reform will change all but seven so that people that don't be so that people will not become deportable. And. Be allowed to be better protected so that our immigrant population isn't arrested for lower level crimes. With that, thank you very much for your time and have a good evening. Gracias.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Santos. And thank you for all the speakers for finding parking and going through security and sitting in these hard chairs. This concludes our speakers. Questions for Members of Council. Councilman Espinosa, I have a question for the city attorney.
Speaker 4: Which one? Just kidding.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to find it in, in, in 17, five, 13. Can you point to me the the it was mentioned the 30 day minimum by one of the speakers.
Speaker 10: Now, if I may counsel the in a previous version of that bill, there was a 30 day but but kind of a mandatory minimum. But in conversations with our stakeholders and different people, that was removed. So I think that's what she was speaking about.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but.
Speaker 1: She was implying that it's still there.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's it's not there.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then specific on the language of back to the habitual domestic offender, which is, you know, page three line to in line, page four, line three, sorry. Where there's that sort of. Not a definition of habitual domestic offender, but all the rules pursuant to the so the bullets, the sort of A, B and C under those are all inclusive, right to the sort of section two. They're not sort of one of those. You know, sometimes it's worded that one of these conditions needs to be met. It has to be all those.
Speaker 10: Conditions, the way I read that or. No. Right. And where I would point you to is maybe that last sentence, the sentences that were separately brought and tried and arising out of separate criminal episodes. So it could be any one of those. It doesn't have to be all three of those.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. And that you're comfortable that that that is clear. Yes. And then lastly, on that same paragraph, paragraph mean section two. Convicted of two or more prior offenses that include an act of domestic violence. So prior offenses can be any misdemeanor included in Class one.
Speaker 10: We just step back. We don't have misdemeanors. We have in our municipal code. But it can be it could be a damage to property. It can be threats, it can be assault. There's a number of ways in which a crime can be committed that would then have a domestic violence tag to make it a act of domestic violence.
Speaker 1: And then so back to. How does how does the appeals process work with regard to this? If somebody were convicted and then they were appealing that.
Speaker 10: They could appeal. There's ways you can appeal a sentence. You can you could claim that the sentence was not that the sentence was not unanimous, that the jury verdict was wrong, that the sentence was unlawful. So you can appeal a sentence just just like you can an underlying conviction.
Speaker 1: So if they're in the appeals process. Well, they never mind. That doesn't make any sense. Okay. Thanks. I just suddenly the I that threw me off the 30 day. So I went back and read it and all sudden things weren't sort of computing. Okay. They had. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. County. Thank you, Councilman Espinoza. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Chad, if you could stay there for a minute. So a couple of a couple of questions. I believe in committee. You explained that the 300 day group, generally, if it's a 300 day sentence, it generally amounts to 180 days served. Did I hear that correctly?
Speaker 10: Yes, Councilman. You get good time credit when you are serving your time, which amounts to essentially 18 for every 30 days. So on the 300 day sentence, you would typically serve 180 days.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you for that. And would you also through for the, um, since it mattered to me in committee, I thought maybe you could explain basically to our viewers why first and second, domestic violence charges were not thrown into the end enhancer category.
Speaker 10: Yes, Councilman, as we were looking at researching this bill and talking with our community partners and talking with our internal advocates, what we generally like to do in a first or second domestic violence that doesn't involve strangulation or serious bodily injury, serious bodily harm is to make sure that we can do treatment for the offender. We can do if there's treatment that's needed for the victim, whether it's anger management or specifically domestic violence. Because our ultimate goal in the city attorney's office is to not see you again. So if there's a way that we can put those supports in place and support the family to move through this, that's what we'd like to do. But, you know, at some point, once you've done it, you've gone through it once and you've gone through it twice. That's why we chose the third or subsequent language.
Speaker 5: And do I understand that with even a first time domestic violence, there can be conditions that would move it into the more serious category?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 10: If if there was an act of strangulation, if there was serious bodily injury, if there was a concussion cuts, loss of consciousness, things like that, it could move that into the category. And obviously, if it is, you know, life threatening or apparently is permanent disfigurement, things like that, we could have filed that into the district attorney's office and we see that every once.
Speaker 5: In a while. Okay. And finally, Mr. President, I was interested during the earlier hour speaker's presentation about the 30 day minimum providing time safety period. I'm just interested as to why you decided that that didn't fit.
Speaker 10: And ultimately, when we were when we were looking at it, you know, we see a wide range of offenses and, um, and being able to give our judges the discretion to move from zero to whatever the maximum is, I think was important. And before we wanted before we wanted to move into anything like mandatory minimums, being able to bring you the data, to be able to say this is why we need this, and to make sure that it was neutral. As And when we talked about racial disparities and things in the criminal justice system to make sure those were being addressed before we would bring you a mandatory minimum.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 3: I have a question for you as well. I'm trying to figure out where the issue of bullying follows, because in a lot of cases, threats come with bullying. Right. And I know this is more prevalent among youth, which would more than likely be served in the youth offender system. But sometimes this happens in the workplace. So where where would that fall?
Speaker 10: And that's a great question. And doesn't just happen in the workplace. We see the same dynamic you might think of in bullying with kids in an intimate relationships or relationships with spouses or your partners. And so, you know, trying to address that when we look at kind of the domestic violence continuum, trying to address that. But in terms of bullying, what we would really look at in the city attorney's office is what is the underlying act? Are the are these threats? Is it harassment by telephone to see if there's a criminal component to to it? Because that is the end they were. Where we're restricted to is criminal conduct.
Speaker 3: So if it were to involve the youth that ends up in the youth offender system, do they get caught up in the same cycle? In terms of. The the the ultimate impact that it has on. You know the the outcome. So. You know, a youth is is treated differently in the youth system. But I'm not clear if the underlying. Not just the categories, but the sentencing. Descriptions that are in the bill would would apply.
Speaker 10: And and I guess I have to answer that in two different ways. One, having been a juvenile prosecutor at one point in my life, all of those factors are taken into consideration when you're looking at, you know, sentencing or treatment or or probation, that, you know, if there's a history of bullying, if there's a history of that type of behavior, then that's going to be be argued at sentencing. The district attorney. Does the vast majority of our prosecution of do you have what you would generally consider juvenile offenders? We do have juvenile court that doesn't have incarceration as part of an outcome. We have probation. And then if you violate probation, you could be tackling a locked facility for 48 hours. But most of those cases where we would see serious bullying cases would we would try to push those to the district attorney's office. Thank you. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Hey. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. The goals of this ordinance are very easy to support because it makes little sense that any violation of city ordinances or regulation, whether it's urinating in public or where a physical assault would carry the same maximum sentence. That seems to make little sense. But as the folks who are at committee might recall, I had some problem thinking through our literal authority to adopt variable maximum fines and maybe I could call Chad forgive. Forgive me for not calling on you, but I had an extensive correspondence with David Broadwell on this and I think I think I'm there and understanding it, but I just wanted to bring that out for anybody who might have watched that on TV or or any of my colleagues who cited the committee in the prior to 1982, the city charter appeared to give us the our predecessors, the ability, the legal authority to set different maximums for different violations. But in 1982, in September, there was a charter amendment proposed by the Council and worked through with the county court judges at the time that required us that limited our authority to only to set. Uniform, maximum fines and and jail time. And I have and Chad, I did read your email and I saw your opinion on that. And I and thereafter corresponded with David. And so I had trouble seeing our actual authority to adopt a different set of maximums for this as much as I want to do that. And so, David, over the late last week, we finally you sent me the ordinance, the enabling ordinance or the implementing ordinance from December 1982, in which the council, the same council that put this on the ballot, also said that that unless there are only if there are no definite fines spelled out in the D in the Denver revised municipal code, would this uniform maximum apply? But I still didn't see the authority in the charter to do this, let alone ignoring the fact that the Council had gone ahead and done something like that. In 1988, there was another charter change that amended that, but it kept uniform maximum. We had to have a uniform maximum for each and every violation, but it allowed us to set different varying minimum fines for violations. So that further cemented my understanding. But David, you you said that there is this principle where courts look on how the legislative body over time administers and carries out that authority. Maybe you could explain that so that I have a comfort level that I can vote yes on this. You're on. And Mr. Sublette and I have discussed it as well, but I'll go ahead and respond since you have asked me to. I'll be happy to do that. But we've had an interesting academic discussion offline that I'll share the short version with the rest of council. Councilman Flynn is quite correct. There's a reference to uniform maximum jail and fines in the charter added in 1982. But from the very moment the word uniform was introduced, council was adopting implementing legislation that on its face contemplated. There could be variation. So. So ever since 1982, your predecessors didn't didn't read that word uniform in the charter to mean that a dog at large has to have the same potential maximum penalty as an assault or a significant disorderly conduct. There have been variations through the years. One of the things I talked about with Councilman Flynn as about ten years ago now, council adopted administrative citations as an alternative to criminal, and that has very specific maximums when you get cited with an administrative citation. It's tiered 150 on the first offense, a higher amount on the second offense and so forth. So I think councils, your and your predecessors in the past have in various ways construed the charter to allow them to create different penalties for different offenses. This, frankly, is a somewhat more kind of ambitious take. I'll I'll admit in terms of how sweeping this is changing most offenses to 300 instead of 365 keeping some circumstances spelled out where it can be more. With a few examples where it can be less. But there are other examples of this through the years. And the principle that Councilman Flynn talked about is one that we lawyers invoke all the time, which is that if the charter has been interpreted flexibly in the way I just described for a really long period of time, courts are going to tend to defer to that. And blessed, if in the, I should say, highly unlikely event in my opinion, that this enactment tonight were to be challenged on the theory that now everything has to have the same ceiling in terms of jail and fines. We are in the city attorney's office. Just don't believe that would be the interpretation at this point in time. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, looks like we are done with questions. This closes council bill 513 now. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the city attorney's office and administration for their work on this bill. As folks who may have been following the conversation know, we didn't have quite as much unanimity in the community. There was definitely some testimony and concerns that were raised along the way. So I feel before I vote, I just needed to talk through a couple of those things for the record. You know, I think from the community's perspective, this conversation started with a fairly fundamental value, which is that consequences for immigration are under federal law and they should flow from that, and that the city's approach to criminal justice really needs to be self-contained, that it's not appropriate to use criminal justice to kind of superimpose immigration penalties intentionally, unintentionally. The idea is that this deeply held belief that we want all of our residents to use the criminal justice system. We want victims to call and report perpetrators, even if they're are people, they know who they may not want to be deported, even if they want them to stop the harm that they're doing, and so that they'll show up at court and fulfill their responsibilities. If they do commit a crime or commit an act, and they need to be held accountable, and that to the extent that we keep these systems separate, our community is safer because there is more trust and there is more faith in the integrity of that city's system, and that it's not our job to be seeking out ways to impose criminal penalties or I'm sorry, to impose immigration penalties on folks who may have, you know, fulfilled their sentences. And I think, you know, the case that I think of that most illustrates this is the Lima Marin case where the governor just took someone who if we were talking about his crime while it was being tried or while it was happening, we would have made a lot of judgments about whether this was a person who should or shouldn't stay in the country. He served his time and he lived out rehabilitate rehabilitation in our community. He had a family. He was an upstanding member of the community. And then, you know, he ended up back in in prison and came under the attention of immigration. And so I think it's a really good example of why we don't want to leap to immigration consequences without giving the criminal justice system and the rehabilitation it provides a chance and then allowing folks to use the defenses that they may or may not have in the federal system to, you know, whether it's to to to to try to extend, you know, a stay of deportation or whatever types of motions they may have available in immigration. And so I share that connection because I think that for some members of our community, the fact that we carved off even a few offenses in this bill and said, nope, we're still intentionally thinking about the fact that there should be some other consequences. We know they're going to happen is, I think, deeply concerning because I think for for that group of community members, the integrity of this is about keeping the two systems separate. And when we saved even a few offenses at that 365 day maximum, I think that it underlies the entire question are we or are we not in the business of using our municipal code to, you know, layer on immigration consequences? So so I sit with that discomfort tonight. And I think that, you know, this is probably not a conversation that's over for us as a city as we look at other areas the community is concerned about. So but I also think that along the way, this bill became about more than solving just that challenge. So there was already a conversation about hate crimes that had begun. We then had the question about decriminalizing the lowest level offenses. And so as each of those has come up, I've tried to do my due diligence. And so really briefly, I just want to share where I think our work continues. So I think it's important for us to monitor this closely and on the low level offenses we were really it was encouraging to learn that only 16 arrests , I believe, happened last year under that entire class of low level offenses that are being brought down to a lower minimum, that may still be too many. But one of the things we know is that most of the jail days in that category are probably happening more for failure to appear, more for probation violations for other things . And so I think it's really important for us to revisit this conversation as a council to remember that we said we wanted to do that, right, so that we look at the data to understand what are the real drivers of jail nights for those folks in those offenses. It's probably not at the moment they're committing the act. It's probably happening later. And the city attorney's office and the jail have promised us that data. I think it's really important we look at it. So so for me, that's something we need to be committed to following up on. And then in the hate crimes piece, I think, you know, I appreciate the speaker from the Anti-Defamation League. The one thing we want to just be really careful is this is not about ideas and it's not about speech. It's about. It's about threatening, dangerous actions that are harmful to people. And so I think that we have a narrowly drafted ordinance, and we want to look to make sure that we're using these enhancers only in the most, you know, provable of cases. And so, you know, I appreciate the city attorney's office being willing to bring us that data. So so I just want to acknowledge that even though some of those speakers I think we're here earlier and they left the chambers, they didn't make it as long as the rest of you. There were some concerns about this bill. I, you know, intend to keep following through on them. But given the balance of the massive number of offenses that we are reclassifying with this, the fact that we are taking some low level offenses way down, I will be supporting the bill tonight and I appreciate all the dialog that it has taken to kind of figure out that this is the right next step, if not the final step. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman, can each. Councilman Espinosa. More on the discussion. I just wanted to say. I did I didn't I don't take our the charter language to mean singular I mean a singular maximum across the board but more but but uniformity in how they're defined. So I'm quite comfortable in voting to move this forward I mean to adopt this. And I just wanted to thank the city attorney for taking this on and moving so in such a timely manner to deliver something that we were requesting on this front. So thank you very much for the work that you guys had done and handling the outreach that you did. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm. Excuse me, Mr. President. I do a lot of the things that were said. Could easily say I support that and. The flight that I do want it. I think the administration I think the city attorney's office for bringing this forward. This is something that it's definitely fine tuning. It's something that we identified as is is creating a win win. At the center of all this, it's it's public safety. And you want to make sure that in order to have public safety, in order to achieve public safety, a lot of people say, well, we want the city to feel safe and you don't want that city to feel safe. We want the city to be safe. And that's the main pillar on which everything rests in a great city. And that depends on trust. You want folks to be able to come forward and report crime, especially victims, especially people who think who who feel that they're in there in a threatening environment. And I think that's that's the key, right? You want that relationship to exist. You don't want people to be afraid to call the police. And unfortunately, people do. And they are. And I think when it comes to, you know, when it comes to the immigration policy and the broken immigration system and the environment that we in, that is becoming even more prevalent in cities like Houston are already reporting that the drop in crime, especially from areas where you have a lot of immigrants who were living in this in the city, and we would hate for that to happen because, you know, things like domestic violence, things like a lot of these crimes, they discriminate against. No one just happens in every community, wealthy or not, black, Latino, Asian or not, it happens. And we want people to be able to report that. So I do really appreciate the clarification there. Their needs. I mean, we do need to further clarify what our roles are under the Constitution and what they aren't. And I think that that's something that that definitely we're looking at and something that we're definitely monitoring. Decriminalization. I'm glad that we're on this path. I'm glad that we're looking at decriminalization. There are a lot of there are a lot of low level offenses out there that do not require a jail sentence, that don't require jail time. And, you know and you know, you have your repeat offenders and but you also have folks that just I mean, there are just some things that are out there that it just makes no sense. You send them back and you send them in the jail. You could be making it worse. And so that those are those are the things that I'm glad that we're looking at able to do that nowadays. You know, I had the privilege to visit New York City and speak of New York City and the city council and work with some of our folks out there to look at the New York City justice reform, criminal justice reform bill. And it was pretty remarkable of some of the things that they were there were working on and looking at decriminalization, but also how that impacts our jail beds as well, too. That's a crisis that we have in our city and looking at and how we able to achieve multiple goals in the same in the same realm. And that's something that I look forward to look forward to be part of in those discussions. But I really this is a great first step, a great move forward. And I got to tell you, the the bill to finally or finally the bill to look at hate crimes. I mean, that's serious. And unfortunately, now it's becoming more prevalent. And it has it's been around for a long time. These kind of crimes have been around. There's a lot of harassment in all parts of our city. And I think that's something that we it's a good, low hanging fruit that we were able to get and something that really just reflects on the values of our city. So my hat's off to the city attorney's office and the folks that are working on this. And I forgot the city attorney. She was here and she oh, there she goes. Oh, this is that wasn't my joke. That was his joke. But I, I wanted to thank you and thank you for your leadership on this. And, Crystal, you've been at the table as well, too. And Crystal's. Clone, basically. So. Thank you. Mr. President, I do support this moving forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Lopez. Councilman Lopez almost called you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: In school for ten years.
Speaker 1: Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. You know, while this topic came at least into my vision, and I know at least several of us as a result of the immigration discussion, this revision of our sentencing makes so much sense, even outside of away from that that particular lens. Long overdue and an excellent job. As usually happens, there are going to be people reading about this and watching and considering this that are going to say we didn't go far enough and there's going to be people who say that we went too far. I'm at a position where after a great deal of consideration and a lot of discussion, I'm very comfortable with this bill. While I share a councilman, CNOOC's concerns that we look at the data as it comes in and be sure that we're honed as as sharp as we want to be. I think this is just an excellent starting point. And I also want to add my my thanks to city attorney Bronson and her entire team for a great dialog. You know, I sat here on another issue a few weeks ago and said that I felt that the city and council had had not done its best, had not worked well together on an issue. In this case, I think it's the opposite. I think the dialog was open and broad ranging and I think we got a good result out of it. So I will look forward to supporting this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. I will close this out and just say probably one of the most fascinating, intriguing, interesting discussions is just the discussion we had over the 364 through 65 on immigration reform. If you want to watch that, you'll learn everything you want to know about immigration law and to to to know that our it feels good to know that we have talent within our city, in our on our legal team to be able to, you know, after going through that exercise to say, hey, we got it right. And so hats off to you, Chris Brunson and all of the team there, Crystal as well. And you guys just did it, Chad, you you guys did a great job. And so thank you for that. And I feel like this is a great step in the right direction. And Kristen, you made a promise to me that this is our last step, that every city in our country right now is working on criminal justice reform. And, you know, it's it's one thing that both conservatives and liberals agree on that we shouldn't have people in our jails that are just sitting there. And so I hope that we really start getting serious about jail reduction. And we've had a conversation on this council. You know, we don't want to see more jail beds added because they disproportionately affect certain parts of the city, which is not right. And so this does the right thing in the right direction. I'm really excited. And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 8: Sussman A black eye.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I Cashman.
Speaker 3: Can eat.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close the votes and please hold voting US results. 12 Wise 12 Eyes Council Bill 513 as amended has passed. Congratulations on to the mayor to sign this bill. Congratulations to the mayor as well, who is very supportive of this bill.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the sentencing structure for violations of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, modifying the general penalty, and creating a tiered penalty system for different levels of class 1 and class 2 violations.
Amends various sections of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to reform the City’s sentencing structure by modifying the general penalties and creating a tiered penalty system for violations of the municipal code. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-3-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0544
|
Speaker 0: So use your multimodal options as we think about that. All right. Seeing no other comments, just want to make sure that I didn't miss anybody. Okay, great. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations then?
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: How about communications?
Speaker 2: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. We have two proclamations this evening. Councilman Flynn, when you please re proclamation 544.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly will. Proclamation 17. Dash 544 declaring May 15 as National Peace Officer Day and the week of May 15 as National Police Week. Whereas in 1961, President John F Kennedy issued an executive order declaring May 15 National Peace Officer Day and the week of May 15 as National Police Week. And. Whereas, during its 158 year history, the more than 10,000 individuals who have comprised the Denver Police Department have played an essential role in safeguarding the rights, freedoms, lives and property of the people of Denver. And. Whereas, during its 158 year history, 72 men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives in service to the people of the city and county of Denver. And. WHEREAS, the Denver Police Department and the Denver Police Museum have undertaken a project to place memorial signs to honor our fallen heroes at the locations where they fell. And. WHEREAS, the Denver Police Department and the Denver Police Museum will honor the following fallen officers this coming year with memorials signs. Thomas Durkin, who lost his life on January 17, 1929. Thomas J. O'Connor, March five, 1934. Fred Renovator, October 13, 1938. Virgil Hall, July five, 1945. William Clawson, February 11, 1953. Donald el-Sheik, January 12, 1958. And. Whereas, the Denver Police Department and the Denver Police Museum also plan to hold special memorial ceremonies to mark the 20th anniversary of both Ronald D Herrera and Bruce Vander Jack's sacrifice. And. Whereas, the Denver Police Department and the Denver Police Foundation have recognized the following active officers for outstanding service this past year, including Troy Smith. Preservation of Life. David Timmerman Preservation of Life. David Wiley. Medal of Valor. Craig Miner. Preservation of Life. Alex Solano. Preservation of life. Zachary Currier. Preservation of life. Kyle Sonja. Preservation of life. John Adsit, Purple Heart. Anthony the KENYON Medal of Valor. Roman Rhetorician. Medal of Valor. Adam Boise. Medal of Valor. Anthony Lopez. Medal of Honor. Purple Heart. Jeffrey Jenkins preservation of life. Ron arrest Civic Officer of the Year. Richard Blair. Above and beyond. And Daniel Filkins. For saving the life of Tony Lopez Jr. And. Whereas, it is important that people know and understand the problems, duties and responsibilities of their police department. And that the members of our police department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting them against violence or disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak, against oppression or intimidation. 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 May 15 and the week of May 15 as Peace Officer, Memorial Day and Police Week to honor the active, retired and deceased members of the Denver Police Department who have faithfully performed their duty to protect and serve the citizens of the city and county of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Mr. President, I move that proclamation. Five, four, four. Be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in. Second, it comes from rooms of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. The resolution of the proclamation rather echoes the very words that President Kennedy used so many years ago to recognize the sacrifices and the work of law enforcement throughout the nation. And we've adopted much of that language here every year when we do this. But it's especially fitting this year for members of the department, but also for those of us who attended the Police Foundation Awards recently to see. The awards that I read that were given out to the current active officers and in particularly the preservation of life awards was so impressive. Mr. President, to hear of the stories and to see some of the dramatizations where police officers have. Not only preserved the lives of others, but themselves and of of perpetrators. Where they have used every bit of their training and restraint. To handle situations that I don't think any of us would ever want to find ourselves in on the street. I've had the pleasure of knowing so many Denver police officers over the 37 years I've lived here and the sacrifices that they make and some of them the ultimate sacrifice, were brought home to me very viscerally. Recently, when Mayor Hancock came down to Laredo Heights and the charter school down there did a ceremonial balloon release for fallen officers of that year. And I had the opportunity to meet the family of Celina House Officer Harless, who was, I think, the last officer who lost her life in City Park a few years ago. And to talk to them and to meet them was just such a moving experience. It's it's just with great pride that I that I sponsor this proclamation. I want to recognize the presence of some of our police command staff, the Denver Police Museum. Mike Hess is here. Pat Nating Almond is here. And we also have representatives of the Police Protective Association and I think Fraternal Order of Police is here as well. So with that, Mr. President, I would urge everybody to join me in adopting this proclamation and consider joining in some of the activities this week.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Well said, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Councilman Flynn for bringing this forward. And I want to thank our men and women of the Denver Police Department for the work that they do day in and day out to protect the the residents and the people who work here and come here to play every single day. And they do that with, you know, with pride. And, you know, we all see and hear various stories in the news. But, you know, when an officer gets up every morning and puts a uniform on, you don't know that you're going to make it home that day. And just knowing that we have had those who were named in the proclamation that have paid the ultimate sacrifice for all of us, we owe them a debt of gratitude. I've been honored to be asked to do one of the sign dedications I did one last year, looking forward to doing one tomorrow. And it's a true honor to stand side by side with the families, knowing at that very location is where their loved one died, and to be able to just honor that individual in a way that shares the mutual love and respect for those individuals. So, Councilman Quinn, thank you for bringing this forward.
Speaker 0: But thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Cashman. Sorry.
Speaker 5: Okay. I thought Ms.. Councilman knew was ahead of me. I want to thank Councilman Flynn as well for bringing this forward. I certainly want to thank the men and women of our Denver police for the work they do on a daily basis. I'll be honored certainly to join in the memorial for the 20th anniversary of Officer Vander Jack's passing.
Speaker 8: But when I.
Speaker 5: Think about this, I think so often of the families.
Speaker 8: That every day.
Speaker 4: They send their.
Speaker 5: Men and women off to work. With the facing the same danger that can come out of nowhere as as benign as the job may be for extended periods of time. All of a sudden, it gets very real. And that fear that these families live.
Speaker 0: With and I'm assuming.
Speaker 5: It kind of. Mirrors the commitment of the officers themselves. So I just want to thank the people in service.
Speaker 0: And again.
Speaker 5: Thank you for bringing this forward, councilor.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman New.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks to Councilman Flynn for bringing this up. And we appreciate that. And you just you know, when you talk to our citizens, you know, public safety is the number one concern they have. That's their number one priority in our city. It's just incredible how much they respect and and want. Pleased to have a very vital role in protecting our way of life here in the city. That one thing that we talked about, our officers protect this from violent crimes and criminals and helping protect us in no way. But one thing that we, the officers do we don't get enough attention for is our neighborhood policing, be working with our community, our resource officers and all our staff being out there talking to our residents, working and trying to prevent crime and not having to be react to a crime after it's occurred. So it's just so important that what they do interact with the community as well as protecting us seven days a week, day and night. They're always there looking out for our interests. So I'm just really very proud to be a part of this and look forward to the memorial service tomorrow. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I do want to join the thinking chain here as a representative of the constituents of District one. In my two years on on this body, I have we've seen it all in District one. And I'm grateful that this year I haven't had to experience sort of the the the violence and the level of violence that we did in my first year here. But I just want to say, as that representative going from place to place, I don't shy away from any neighborhood in my district, and neither does Commander Payson. And wherever we go, there's a genuine appreciation of our police. And I just want you to know that I want to thank you all for being the high caliber quality force that this this community deserves and for doing a commendable job in the line of duty. So thank you all very much for serving. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to have my name added to the proclamation, so I want to make sure that that is announced and just as the thank you that everyone else says. And it's amazing all the things that you don't see that our men and women in uniform do. I think about the example when they brought the mounted patrol to the Isabella Byrd Elementary School where they had the new horse and they let the third graders pick the name for the new horse. And Galaxie is now the new member of the Mountain Patrol. And those are the things you just don't hear about it. Councilwoman Anne Gilmore and I sign certificates for District five, top cops, District two. I had the opportunity to sit on a board where we get to choose all the winners for each month, and every one could just be something that should be on the news. And it's something, unfortunately, that you don't see. So I appreciate us taking this time to acknowledge them, but I think we have a greater responsibility to is to ensure that our men and women in uniform have their right equipment and facilities. So as we have this bond conversation that's going to continue and hopefully the voters will improve in the fall, I hope that we have some safety improvements and enhancements for our men and women in uniform, because that is something that, in my opinion, is in dire need that we need to increase here in the city and county of Denver. So, once again, thank you for all that you do each and every day. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I can't say it any better than my colleagues already have. So but I just wanted to add my thank you to all of our police officers and my deep, deep appreciation to all of the family members of all of our police officers, a true, true service to community. And not a day goes by that I don't remember that. And think about that. And today's an important day because I get to say it out loud in front of a lot of people. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to add my thanks in particular. Thanks. As a councilman, you often have to call on the neighborhood resource officers and they're so responsive and I've been so grateful for them. And special shout out to the commanders of the two districts that encompass my district commander, Carlo and Commander Dodge. Thanks for all you do. For all of us.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very proud to be a co-sponsor of the proclamation and just wanted to also chime in my share of gratitude for our men and women in the police department. And I got to give a shout out to our former commander, Nagle, and our Dean Christofferson, who used to be our CEO for I had the pleasure of working with them hand in hand in District four and District one and six are in Council District three now. So there's a lot of there's a lot of overlap. I'm happy about that. But the one thing that I really admire the most, aside from just a human element and that that hand raise to say, hey, send me, I'll do it right, I'll, I'll I'll do that is the is the badge. And that badge is special because it has the seal of the people on. And the seal of our city. And that's what makes it absolutely sacred as they do it on the behalf of people in our city. So I to say thank you and thank you to the families.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Um, I'll just. I'll just send by saying we honor you today. Thanks for being here. Thanks for your sacrifice. And, you know, on behalf of all the city council, we honor and love you guys. We appreciate it. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman can eat. Lopez.
Speaker 3: I knew.
Speaker 2: Ortega. Sussman. Clark. Hi. Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I pliskova voting in results.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. Proclamation 544 has been adopted. Councilman Flynn. Is there anyone you want to bring up to receive this proclamation?
Speaker 5: You know, coincidentally enough, Mr. President, there is the fact there's quite a few people I wish could could speak, but. And they could speak for a long time, but then we'd have to swear them on the council to give them that much time. So I would like to ask our deputy chief, Matt Murray. And we have some family members here. Jen Kawasaki. And Dan Dowd. And did Robert Elgin come in? From Randy Herrera's family? No. Oh. Okay. Chief.
Speaker 0: So first, let me just give Chief White's apologies that he couldn't be here tonight. You all know him well, and you know that he was he's very grateful for this and would be here if he could. The second thing I want to tell you is that we work in a profession where you can't really get through a career without knowing someone who died. And oftentimes we know him well. And sometimes in careers, you know, a lot of people who die in the.
Speaker 4: Line of duty and give their.
Speaker 0: Life to the city and it hurts.
Speaker 4: And you know these people as people.
Speaker 0: And in our case, we've had 70 to 72 police officers gave their life for this city. And this week is about remembering them and about remembering their families. And if you go to a police funeral, and I know many of you have, we always say the same thing. We'll never forget, we'll never forget, we'll never forget. And today we put up a sign at 2810 Downing for an officer who died in 1953.
Speaker 4: And tomorrow will be one from 1934.
Speaker 0: And it's it's a great tradition that the museum has started, and we're very appreciative. And I think it's a great symbol for this city and a great way to remember. But I don't really want to end there. I want to tell you all. You know, we know you. We are so appreciative of the support we get from this council and from the people of this city. Laying on of hands in City Park. Being at a police citizen's academy.
Speaker 4: The tweets going to meetings. We know you.
Speaker 0: We really do know you. I sat across the aisle from Councilwoman Kennish on the way to Washington, D.C. We know you and we know how you feel about us. And I will tell you, sitting here and the officers who listened to what you had to say, it's so.
Speaker 4: Genuine.
Speaker 0: And so sincere.
Speaker 4: And it means a great deal to us.
Speaker 0: And we know that you are the people's representative and that that's how this community feels about us as well. And so this this week means a lot to us. It's an important thing we do. But what you're having to say to us, you know, just is very, very touching and means a great deal to the officers of this department. And I want.
Speaker 4: You to know that.
Speaker 0: And how much we appreciate this council and the support you continually give us. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. First of all, I just want to give a warm just thank you so much for allowing this the opportunity to preserve the past and look at the present and the future. I am so grateful to live in a country where opportunity is the norm and it's not the exception. I think that we all have opportunities in life and everywhere we turn we can go right or we can go left, we can go straight or we can turn around. But we are met with opportunity here. And I think that every officer that takes this honor to be on our police department absolutely has made a conscious choice, having very slight idea what might what may lie ahead and true the path ahead will be rewarding and it will also be devastating. I'll be happy and sad and it'll be enlightening and sometimes dark and very dangerous. And in my mind, they choose to take this path because of one thing. And that's love. Love for community, love for all people, love for right and wrong, love for the opportunity to see people in the worst and try to make it better and truly a love for his or her brother and is a very special person to show love in this area where sometimes police officers are not seen as love. I stand here today as a survivor of a fallen officer, and I've seen firsthand the love that can pour out of this job. My dad, Donald Bruno, had a love for this job like no other. I've heard through so many stories how my dad helped people, how he counseled people, how he took time to hear them when nobody else would do some. It was a wake up call and of the greatest of all love he could give. He inspired one woman to be a police officer for the Denver Police Department. I believe he joined the Brotherhood of the Denver Police Department to show love. And they also believe on December 5th or December 10th, 1975, that God took one of his earthly angels up to heaven to walk a different beat and to serve and protect from a different post. And as our family gathered to the strength each day to go on, we felt a love like no other from the Denver Police Department and from the Denver Police Orphans Fund. And they took amazing care of our family. And they never, never, never forgot my dad and they never forgot us. Life is really all about love. And I think every single one of our officers, each and every day for the love that they wear on their sleeve. It's not just a badge on them. It's the badge of love on their sleeve. And I'm so thankful. So thank you for giving us an opportunity to celebrate the past, the present, and the future.
Speaker 8: Hello. My family, and I would like to thank the city council for this proclamation. This is just another thing that the city has done to recognize our farther between the police memorial.
Speaker 4: And the street sign at 15th in California, it lets other.
Speaker 8: Officers and residents, the city of Denver see.
Speaker 4: What our father did while he was a police officer. It takes a special type of person to become policeman.
Speaker 8: Most people aren't willing to put their life on the line for someone else. My dad was.
Speaker 5: One of those people who.
Speaker 4: Did. What everyone needs to know is that not just the police officer, the officer that's serving each day, his family also does wondering if he's in a come back through the door every morning or every night, whatever shift he had. I just hope that no other police family has to get the call that their loved one has given their life in the line of duty. I know this is wishful thinking. Once again, me and my brothers and sisters are thankful to the city of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, money also take just a moment to to recognize Pat nating Armin in the audience who who lost her husband in 1971. Thank you. And she is now vice president of the Denver Police Museum.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation declaring May 15 as National Peace Officer Day and the Week of May 15 as National Police Week.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0545
|
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, money also take just a moment to to recognize Pat nating Armin in the audience who who lost her husband in 1971. Thank you. And she is now vice president of the Denver Police Museum.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. We have another proclamation this evening. Councilman Lopez, will you please read Proclamation 545?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. Proclamation 545 Series of 2017 recognizing May 19th as hepatitis testing day in July 28 as World Hepatitis Day, whereas May 19th as National Hepatitis Testing Day in July 28th is World Hepatitis Day. Hepatitis C is recognized as the most common blood borne viral infection in the United States. And. Whereas, Hepatitis C has infected an estimated 70,000 Coloradans, as many as 3.5 million American residents, nearly one in 50 persons in more than 130 million people worldwide. And it is the leading cause of cirrhosis, liver cancer and liver transplants. Transplants in the United States. Excuse me. And. Whereas, as many as 20,000 hepatitis hepatitis C related deaths occur annually in the United States, these rates are expected to peak between the years 2030 and 2035 at 36,000 deaths per year. Make me hepatitis C, one of the top preventable causes of death. And when I ask people born between 1945 and 1965 are five times more likely to be infected than other adults. More than 75% of all people with hep C in the United States are people in this age range and are largely unaware of the condition due to any lack of signs, symptoms and testing. Beating Hepatitis C to be labeled as, quote unquote, the silent epidemic. And. WHEREAS, Hepatitis C disproportionately affects people of color and the majority of individuals with the infection can be cured of the virus through the advent of an effective treatment options currently available on the market and those cured through treatment are able to stop and even reverse damage to the liver caused by the virus. 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 linkages to care. Patient navigation, help line and other support services. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one. The Denver City Council agrees that preventing and treating Hep C 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 recognize recognizes July 28 as World Hepatitis Day. Section three at the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix the seal of the city and county in Denver to this proclamation, and then a copy be transmitted to Nancy Steinfurth, executive director of Liver Health Connection.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt this president.
Speaker 4: I move to adopt proclamation 545 of 2017.
Speaker 0: Great idea has been moved. And second, it comes by members of council councilman lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I appreciate it. I, as you know, have been doing this thing for. I don't know, eight years. Every every year on the council. And in those eight years, I cannot help but think. And, you know, here's the thing. I. This is supposed to be Councilman Ray Garcia's proclamation on long time ago. He didn't show up and we needed someone to carry the proclamation. And I said, I'll do it. But guess what? I did it. And I said, wait a second. This actually hits home for me. This hits home for me because the only the. The man that played that role of father in my life died. I passed away because of cirrhosis of the liver. He had no idea until it was detectable. I think sometime in the late 2000 or 2000, late nineties. He realized, and they found that he had hepatitis C. And his liver was already at a point where it was life threatening. And my grandfather thought to himself, a man wasn't that much of a drinker. I mean I mean, the guy would drink the beer. That was the generic beer and kind of white and, you know, the white Canada stripe on it said beer. Right. I remember that being my grandfather. He said, No, I don't think that's it. My grandfather never you know, I was faithful man is somebody who's just is my grandfather. Now, I guess what? In World War Two. My grandfather was serving in Germany. He was hurt. His Jeep had ran over an explosive and everybody in the jeep was killed and it just crushed his knee and he bled. And so they gave him a blood transfusion. A lot of folks in that age range. It was undetectable. And ended up taking my grandfather from us. And so for me, this hits home because I think to myself, what would have happened if he'd stayed around? I know I'd have at least four of my formative years in my life, my grandfather around. Right. And knowing that now is preventable. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to make sure people understand this is preventable and it's curable. How many diseases that are terrible like this. Can we say that about. Hmm. Here's just one of them. And it's important that folks that everybody get you get people out there to get tested. Should I go all the time? And, you know, I hate needles, but I just do it just because, you know, just to be in solidarity. And also I'm a freaking out as I go along. But, you know, you just kind of like you have to do it. And it's it's out there and it's something that's preventable. And the more education that we have, the better and the better we can get the word out. And I just think to myself, okay, well, you know, I thought to myself, oh, man, how is this proclamation really changed? Was it the language is kind of the same language and this over and over. But I think to myself, you know what, eight years is a long time. Eight years is a lot of people. Imagine what eight years can do. Right. Every single year we have to make sure we talk about this and we make it commonplace. So. Mr. President, I really appreciate the time being able to comment on it. As a great organization used to be called the Hep C connection, but now it's the liver liver health connection. So without further ado, I'm proudly supporting this proclamation in memory of my grandfather, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in doing the same.
Speaker 0: Beautiful. Councilman Lopez, thanks for carrying the ball for city council on this important issue and for our city for the last eight years. It looks like no one else is up to speak, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Assessment Clerk by Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Herndon. Kashan Canete. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: 12.
Speaker 0: Please close the voting and then switch 12 eyes. Proclamation 545 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, I see nine up there.
Speaker 2: I'll clean up the vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. You guys don't worry about that. We'll clean it up. All right. Counsel Guzman Lopez, do you have anyone you'd like to bring up?
Speaker 4: Absolutely. I'd like to welcome back up to the counselor podium and Nancy Steinfurth, who is the E.D., the executive director of the Liver Health Connection, which has a great announcement that we're participating in. Right. So go for it.
Speaker 2: Oh, dear.
Speaker 1: I hope that's on my remarks. Hello. And thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I'm here tonight to offer hope and action to anyone who may have had a risk factor for the hepatitis C virus. That means baby boomers, Vietnam veterans, health care workers, police, fire, all those police officers who were here before, EMT responders, people who were transfused with blood plasma or RH factor. People who.
Speaker 3: Received tattoos in unregulated settings.
Speaker 1: Or people who shared needles or works while injecting. Let's face it, the list includes almost.
Speaker 3: All of us. I'm happy to.
Speaker 1: Say that there is hope for anyone with the virus, and that's because we have a cure that is up to 99% effective. So there's a lots of conditions, you know, this and that and the other 99%. They're very close to a treatment that is 100% effective. So it's amazing the cure is cheaper than when they first were launched three years ago thanks to competition. So they're five different treatments and they vary by genotype.
Speaker 3: We can help with.
Speaker 1: Figuring out genotype, which one's the right one, etc. but it's amazing that they're now about $30,000 where originally the first drug was launched at.
Speaker 3: 84,000. So.
Speaker 1: It was a lot of hard work. There are financial resources to help with co-insurance payments. So a lot of times under the ACA, people might have a co-insurance amount of $6,000. We know of some foundations that will help be able to pay that. So someone might end up paying $50 or $100 per month for their treatment. So when you think of 84,000 down to $150, it's worth it. And then Colorado Medicaid in October 2016 reduced their restrictions so that many more people can access treatment. And I can tell you that our colleagues at Denver Health are very busy, very, very busy. But they like that. They like being kept busy. The action that I offer is this liver health connection will be offering free hepatitis C testing in the web building on May 19th between the hours of nine and 3 p.m.. So that's this Friday. We encourage everyone to come get tested if you've not already been so. Also, there is testing in four other Denver locations and that's at D cap 6260 East Colfax Avenue on a walk in basis. That's their new office. So it's three other locations. Hey, Denver, 1720, Pearl Street from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.. And then the Denver Indian Health and Family Service, 1633 Fillmore. From 830 to 4:30 p.m.. If this doesn't work for your schedule, you can call it. Contact us will test you at any time. Well.
Speaker 3: Not at midnight. Don't call then.
Speaker 1: But it's. It's free and we will honor that. So whatever the risk factor is at our organization will test you for free. And then we will work with you on what the next steps are.
Speaker 3: The test is simple.
Speaker 1: It's a little finger prick. So even Councilman Lopez can handle this. We can give results in 20 minutes, and then we'll walk you through. And all of these testing sites can walk you through what the next steps are, because this is diagnosing or coming up with antibodies. And that is not the final test in all of this. It's also possible to call a liver health connection 800 5224372 to find a treating physician actually anywhere in the country. But we'll focus on Denver right now. Financial assistance or to understand test results, we are available to help people along every step in the path to being cured. However, the first step is knowing your HIV status, and that starts with testing. We hope you'll join us and our Denver partner organizations on May 19th and take that first step. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for always being our champion, always making me cry. The story of your grandfather and all of the council members for advocacy on behalf of this important issue. So for World Hepatitis Day, we're also doing a testing event on the 16th Street Mall, and I believe it's from 10 to 1 or two. We're going to have a tent, we're going to have some other activities, but.
Speaker 3: That'll be our second event as a part.
Speaker 1: Of this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing this forward for the eighth year.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing May 19th as “Hepatitis Testing Day” and July 28th as “World Hepatitis Day”.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0467
|
Speaker 0: A question for that. Great. Why don't you put that as the last bill on under resolution as. Okay, Madam Secretary? Yes. All right. All right. Madam Secretary, please bring up a resolution for 67 for Councilman Flynn. Offline.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to take 30 seconds briefly to say that every week, you know, we pass resolutions approving numerous contracts, millions of dollars, and there's always a story of some sort behind them. I just want to take a short time to recognize Tariq Khan and the CIA. A little over a year ago, we sat here and adopted a proclamation declaring April of last year as Autism Awareness Month. TerraCom Consultants up in Wheat Ridge are about a summer up there, has an intentional program of hiring individuals who are on the autism spectrum. And I want to thank them for doing that. And I also want to thank DIA for bringing forward this contract. And I believe some of those employees will be working on the geotechnical side of this contract. So thank you very much.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Terracon Consultants, Inc. concerning geotechnical services at Denver International Airport.
Approves a five-year contract with Terracon Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $5 million for geotechnical services including soil assessments, ground water investigations, and other geotechnical reporting as part of the planning and design of future capital improvement and maintenance projects at Denver International Airport (201628523). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-22-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 4-26-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0328
|
Speaker 5: I think I believe, Councilwoman Sussman, he's a constituent in your district and maybe you know him as well. And so they will proceed with now with the work of the committee. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: All right. Councilman Lopez, did you want to.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Just got a great last name.
Speaker 0: Okay, that's. That's beautiful. Okay. Madam Secretary, can you please bring up Council Bill 328? Councilman Lopez?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. So on 320, I just wanted to make this comment. For the past couple of years, the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Association has wanted to receive funding directly from the funder as a grant moneys instead of through Denver Human Services. So DHS has decided to permit the entire funding amount of the grant to go directly to state CCH instead of DHS keeping 2% of the grant funding for administration and processing. So this amount must now be used by CCH for direct client services. The $35,170 increase in the contract is the 2% difference that CCH will now receive for direct client services. So, you know, I wanted to I mean, because there is that difference in that question had had popped up earlier today. I just wanted to clarify it and go on the record of doing that. DHS will remain the recipient of the grant, but will pass through the entire amount of the grant to CCH.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn, were you up next or can each.
Speaker 5: I will. Thank you, Mr. President. This raises a couple of questions in my mind, because when this went through committee, I believe it was about consent. Chairman Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 4: I believe so strongly.
Speaker 5: So usually when the amount of the contract changes, there has to be a new filing number and we have to do an amendment. But the way I understand this, we didn't actually change the amount in the contract. It was just incorrect in the description we were given. And, Mr. President, it's a problem for me when we when we're looking at things on consent and looking at the descriptions and we don't have the full body of the contract yet to understand that that's not the amount of money that we approved. So I do have a couple of questions on this, but I don't know if anybody is here from Human Services who can.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. We have Ron here.
Speaker 5: Hello. Way in the back.
Speaker 9: Good evening. I'm Ron Mitchell with Human Services.
Speaker 5: Hi, Ron. Why why are we changing the policy and how how long is that 2% been in place?
Speaker 9: Well, that 2% has been in place for quite some time. I don't have the exact number of years, but traditionally we have taken about 2% out. It's often been a little bit less than that to administer that the grant and that means the processing of it as well as the monitoring of it that we do that the time that it went to Mayor Council, there were negotiations essentially underway to make a determination of what we should do with the Housing First grant should it go entirely to the vendor who has been receiving the vast majority of it, which is Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, or should the city retain it? And the decision ultimately was made that the city would retain that.
Speaker 5: So the question I have is why then was it a mayor council if we were still negotiating it, why we put the cart before the horse?
Speaker 9: Well, part of that.
Speaker 5: Would have been nice if we had known this.
Speaker 9: Yes, Councilman, part of that is that there have been sometimes delays and being able to reimburse some of our vendors with these federal contracts or the federal grants, rather, the federal grants do allow backdating so that we can catch up. And so they actually because they are really inconsistent about delivering the funds. And so part of that was that the contract administrator wanted to try to move that through. What I had failed to do as one set negotiation had terminated was to update you all with the changes that were were made this afternoon. Yes. The contract administrator noticed that the amount was different than what was in the contract.
Speaker 5: Okay, I'm glad you caught it right before our meeting. But who is going to pay the processing fees and administration now? Are they not do we not have costs on this contract or are we going to have to cover that elsewhere?
Speaker 9: Otherwise we do have to cover it. Essentially, we are going to have expenses associated with the contract, obviously with processing it and monitoring it. But the decision was made that to pass those funds through so that there was more service dollars available in the contract to the vendor.
Speaker 5: So are we changing this for all such contracts now?
Speaker 9: Not at this point.
Speaker 5: Why this one?
Speaker 9: This one came to the attention of, I believe, council some of the council members that were approached by Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. And they had they had been advocating for at least a couple of years to receive the grant directly. And my understanding is that it was basically a negotiation that that did allow the city to retain the grant so that we can ensure that those funds are directed how we want them directed in line with our goals around Denver's Road Home and the Office of Hope.
Speaker 5: Mm hmm. And did we also change the scope of services? Did we add to the scope?
Speaker 9: Only in as much as the 2% was now passed through directly to them with again, not having them use those funds for administration of of the grant of the funds. But but to go to direct services. So that was the in negotiation.
Speaker 5: So is this a one time decision.
Speaker 9: For this for this grant? This is expected to be ongoing.
Speaker 5: For this grant. Right. But for other providers, will we be doing the same thing?
Speaker 9: Not that I'm aware of at this point.
Speaker 5: I have a feeling Councilwoman Canisius buzzed in after me. And I have a feeling if she had gone first, I could have taken less time. So let me let me pass. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Think that is wise counsel and can each.
Speaker 3: Know no expectations. Right. Well, thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, thank you to the department. I did want to chime in, because this is a contract that I did ask some questions about. And I think that like many contracts, it's not I mean, I don't want to throw the administration under the bus, but they often file audience requests while they're still finishing the text of the contract. It happens all the time. So that's actually not unique to this contract. We can debate another day whether that's a good or bad practice, but the goal is to keep things moving often so that either services continue occurring without interruption in work so that small businesses, nonprofits aren't expected to operate without being paid. So those are the the trade offs that we have. And, you know, I, for one, understand that there's a public interest in keeping things moving and not waiting until all of the ink is dry and every provision to file. But but I hear the concerns about this coming down to the wire. So the two things I guess I want to add is I think this this grant is a little different. You mentioned that they get the vast majority of the funds, but there are no other subcontractors and there haven't been any subcontractors for many years. Right now, this is an example of where in the past it's my understanding that this grant had to go to local government. It couldn't go to nonprofits. Is that is that accurate? So but the federal government changed that rule. So here's the question. What if. You know, we we talk a lot about efficiency in our city, you know, so sometimes we have to accept money from the government and pass it on to providers, because that's the rule in this case. There is a very clear set of criteria for this grant. There is one applicant who does who does that work, who manages these tenant vouchers. It has been the same contractor for many years, and they could, in theory, get this directly.
Speaker 9: They could, yes.
Speaker 3: So the question becomes, how do we justify to the public that it's running through us and that we're taking money off the top that isn't going to rental vouchers? So that's that's one compelling public interest question, right. In terms of the substance of the change. The second thing I would say in terms of why I think it you know, I support the administration's decision to proceed rather than killing the bill and starting over is because it's my understanding we've had some concerns with timeliness of our own processing of payments. It hasn't just been federal payments. That's correct. Okay. And so when that happens, we have a nonprofit who's left trying to cover the costs. And in perhaps cases, we might be in violation of some federal standards.
Speaker 9: Yes, we when these grants come in again, they often, especially in the last 5 to 7 years, have become and very inconsistently ever since the Great Recession. And what we're able to do is, is we have some funds that the city council has approved of that allows us to cover those costs for vendors and to pay their invoices prior to actually receiving the federal funds this year, the grant came in more timely than before, but that that has been an issue for many of our nonprofits. And so with City Council's permission, we've been able to keep those services flowing, as you had mentioned, without interruption, by having a special fund that covers those costs until the federal funding comes in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I don't want to call the vendor out because again, I think this is one of those sensitive topics, but I think that the vendor would state that they are still not receiving timely payments in many cases. So there is there is a genuine dispute here between parties and I think so. So I guess to just narrow it down, this is more my comment than my question, which is that two things. One, where there is no argument as to the fact that this is the sole provider of these services, it's not appropriate for us to carve money off the top just for it to flow through us. The money should go to the folks who need it, which in this case are homeless individuals who need rental vouchers. And so to the extent that we may incur some administrative costs in passing that money through, I think that that's a fair trade for the fact that we've had some timeliness of payment issues, which I'm sure has cost the vendor on the other side. So if you consider that any good contract involves, you know, something on each side, we may be eating a few administrative costs for passing through, but they've been eating costs for our delays. So in the in this case, I will just close by saying this. I'm going to support this contract this year. At this time, I think it's a you know, it's a tough confluence of factors. But I think it's important that we look at, again, what the compelling policy cases for not just allowing this grant to flow directly . It is a very defined scope of services. We couldn't use these funds to build housing. We couldn't use these funds to do other things. So there's a very limited scope the federal government provides. And so the case that we have to pass through them, I think bears more discussion. And I hope that I hope that the city and the department and the and the partners. I can talk more about that so that next year you can kind of make a good case to us. If it's this narrow scope and we don't really have any say over how it's done, what's the justification for for all of this? Because it does cause delays in terms of clients getting their their services. So with that, I'll be supporting it today. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Councilman Flint. You wanna.
Speaker 5: Thank you? Yes, my friend. Just a quick follow up, then. Councilwoman, are there other raises the question this this contract went through on consent eight weeks ago. And so there's been a lot of time elapsed. And to have a change like this on the floor or actually about an hour before is disconcerting. So I'm wondering if it might be time to sit down, maybe in council and Chair Lopez's committee in Safety and housing. And homelessness prevention to discuss the process and try to keep it more linear. Instead of reaching back and making changes and and telling us about them here, it might work out a little better.
Speaker 0: So. So, Councilman Flynn, are you proposing that we pass this bill and we for it and we go back and we have a conversation about future bills?
Speaker 5: Yes, I do. I have no I have no desire to hold it up. Yeah. Today, I'm just trying to understand when. When I'm.
Speaker 0: In last.
Speaker 5: Minute pitches come at.
Speaker 0: Us. Yeah, I'm in favor of that. I think the public it's important. The public should know this is for 240 units. Right. Rental assistance for homeless individuals. So we want to get this money on the street as soon as possible. So I'm glad I'm in favor of that. Councilwoman.
Speaker 6: I just want to say I support the bill, but I also support the conversation about the fact that we really do need to have a broader conversation, not just on human services, but on contracts in general, because all too often we don't get complete information. And, you know, when we look at the the documents that are filed there, the contracts aren't there. We don't see the level of detail that we get only when we ask questions. And so I think it's important for us and in I'll remind you that our procedures were changed that basically removed one week out of our process to be able to review documents. So we moved contracts now to two resolutions where we get to see them just one time. And so the fact that we're not getting complete information at the last minute, we're having to make scrambled phone calls to agency staff. I think it's a bigger conversation that we need to have. I would suggest maybe we do it in an operations meeting to figure out what, you know, where do we want to go with that?
Speaker 0: Yeah, it sounds like two different issues. This this contract in particular in the future, which Councilman Lopez, I'm sure you're okay to bring in your committee and then operations. We can have a conversation around in general the information that we're receiving in all these contracts. All right. Okay. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just want to sort of chime in. Wherever that ends up the subsequent conversation, I don't I think that whether the money can go or he can or cannot, I mean, it can go directly, but there's always an avenue for government oversight or something. I mean, again, we're not talking specifically to that fund. I don't think in general we should be afraid of taking on some level of responsibility, considering how many funds go to this particular provider and all of our providers. I mean, Human Services has a role to play in the administration because we have seen previously in this council what happens when when we just defer that responsibility to the providers. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Okay. We're going to move on to Resolution 500.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to provide rental assistance and support services to the homeless.
Approves a contract with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless in the amount of $2,497,840 and contract term through 3-31-18 for rental assistance of 240 units of housing for chronically homeless individuals living with disabilities using funds through the Continuum of Care Housing First grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-5-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 3-22-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0523
|
Speaker 0: Okay. Next Monday, May 22nd. This will be a one hour courtesy public hearing. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. All right. Madam Secretary, can you pull up the next item? Believe it's five. They're good. 523. Councilman Espinosa, since Councilman Flynn will be offering an amendment, please put Council Bill 523 on the floor. I move that council bill 523 be ordered published. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Flynn, go ahead and offer your amendment.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 17, Dash 523 be amended in the following particulars. Make the following change on page two. Lines 3 to 6, page two, lines 25, 228, page three, lines 22, 23 and page four. Lines 9 to 12. Strike the words the directors scheduled a public hearing for an application for a retail marijuana store license or a medical marijuana center license. And the application was subsequently subsequently withdrawn prior to final action by the director on the application and substitute the words the same or another applicant previously withdrew an application for a retail marijuana store license or a medical marijuana center license after the scheduling of a public hearing on the application, but prior to final action by the director on the application.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Comments.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This bill provides, among other things, a one year waiting period of before a particular applicant who withdraws an application subsequent to setting of a hearing and subsequent to setting in motion all of the neighborhood organizing and petitioning and canvasing. If that applicant withdrawals before there is a final decision, it provides a one year waiting period before that particular applicant can reapply for that particular real life particular location. This amendment to clarify some wording that created a little bit of ambiguity as to when the clock started on that one year. The intent is that the clock starts from the date of the withdrawal of the application and not any prior trigger as well. And so I ask that the folks, my colleagues on the council here support that that one technical change that changes nothing of of substance in the bill itself.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I see it. Malia's in the room, and I have a couple of questions. I missed the marijuana committee meeting.
Speaker 1: About this, so.
Speaker 3: This gives me a little bit of an opportunity to ask some questions about this bill in the in the word the same or another applicant. What is what is another applicant? Is that like the friend of the original applicant or what is the meaning of that? Good evening, counsel. I appreciate being given the opportunity to make comment. I know this is Councilman Flynn's bill. My interpretation of that of that bill and of course, defer to Councilman Flynn is that any other applicant that wants to go into either that particular location or within 1000 feet, it doesn't have to be related to the original applicant. So the application follows the the location and not the I mean, that the license follows the location and not the person. The cooling off period follows the location and not the person. Not the person. Okay. Is that correct? All right. The other question I had is, when I look at this, it says, if the applicant has withdrawn, they've set they've set a time for a hearing, but they withdraw it prior to the final action of the director. What if they set and set a hearing and then withdraw and. And suppose that the hearing, the neighborhood was in support of it. But then they decided for some other reason to withdraw it. There's nothing in here that says that gives an applicant who might withdraw for reasons not related to a neighborhood, you know, needs and desires hearing. Or suppose that the construction plans didn't come through or other reasons why an applicant might withdraw before the final hearing. Again, the length I interpret the language of the bill to there is no reason imposed on the on the withdrawal of the application if it's set for a hearing and then subsequently withdrawn for whatever reason, it would trigger that one year cooling off period.
Speaker 0: But the proposer has a.
Speaker 8: Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter.
Speaker 3: Sure. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman. The there are many options available to an appeal. If an applicant only merely has to has a construction delay or some other factor. Withdrawal usually isn't the option. What they would do is ask for a a continuation or a postponement of the hearing. There's plenty of other avenues available to do that. Usually you wouldn't see a person withdraw. The intent of this, though, as to provide a quiet period for the neighborhoods of one year. Unlike in the liquor code where there's two years for a denial because the neighborhood already will have gone through the stress, the conflict, sometimes the tension , the effort, all volunteer of canvasing if an applicant withdrawals and then reapply a month or two later. All of that neighborhood effort, all of that neighborhood expense and volunteering is down the drain and they have to do it again. So that's why this bill asks for a one year wait before they can reapply. But in the event that there's an issue with construction, the the avenue of recourse would be to ask for a postponement, which is something that's up to the director's discretion. I'm sure it's happened before. I know it's happened. I know it's happened before.
Speaker 3: That's correct. It has occurred as an applicant. Ask for a postponement if the neighborhood was favorable.
Speaker 1: Towards the location.
Speaker 3: Oh, am I asking the wrong.
Speaker 0: No, I just. Yeah, just wanted to.
Speaker 3: Okay. Is it? Is it? It could a could an applicant withdraw? Even though they had I mean, can they ask for a postponement if they had an unfavorable needs and desires hearing? They and Councilman Brooks thinks that David is the person to answer that.
Speaker 0: David Broder, did you not draft this ordinance?
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 5: And I'm going to continue to defer to the sponsor on the answers, but I'd be happy to take a stab as well. The the in the situation you're describing, I think, Councilwoman, it's is probably very much in line with what Councilman Flint is anticipating. If someone has gone through having a hearing said it's a it's a contentious hearing, he's facing the possibility of denial. But the executive the director of excise license hasn't acted yet and then just suddenly withdraws it. Right. The councilman's intent in proposing this entire approach is kind of having put the neighborhood through the meat grinder for there to be a period of time before someone can reapply. In precisely that scenario, when there's.
Speaker 8: Been an adverse experience at the at the at.
Speaker 5: The public hearing. But the director hasn't quite acted yet. And again, I would defer to the sponsor if he he would like to add to that.
Speaker 3: I completely understand the reason for, you know, a delay of this kind to right the year delay. But what I've just heard that the applicant has a way to postpone if there's a construction delay or something like that. So he doesn't have to withdraw. Is that postponement option also available to the applicant who has received an unfavorable response from the neighborhood? And if it's if it's an option, isn't everybody allowed that option before the before the director makes a ruling.
Speaker 5: And to clarify before kicking it back tomorrow. This bill doesn't address the postponement options that may exist under current rules and procedures and so forth. And Marley can address what those rules and ground rules are, but just how this bill doesn't affect postponement scenarios at all.
Speaker 3: Marlee And I can say, just from having handled these types of hearings and worked with exiles for four years, that that never happens. For starters, once they go through the hearing, they don't try to withdraw an application. However, if if someone went through the actual hearing and went through that headache and then wanted to withdraw, we would recommend a decision would still be issued by the hearing officer and the executive director would still issue a final decision. So we would be back into the scenario of the two year cooling off period.
Speaker 0: They did go through a hearing and were.
Speaker 3: Either denied or, you know, in this scenario they would have been denied. It's the same law that we have for liquor, liquor as a two year cooling off period for a withdrawal. Correct. No. There is no no such cooling off period for withdrawal, only.
Speaker 0: If after.
Speaker 3: A unfavorable hearing. Okay. So this is an additional obligation on a marijuana shot or contender, I guess it's not like the liquor law. That particular portion of it is not like the liquor law. Also, liquor is a 500 foot perimeter around the location. So that's not like a liquor law either. Correct. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Counselor Lopez.
Speaker 4: Well, more of a comment, so I don't know.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Ortega, do you have a question?
Speaker 6: Come mine is a comment on customer Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I. I do understand the line of thinking, and I do appreciate that the questions I mean, I'm only chiming in to speak because I'm very familiar with the with the hearing process when and when it comes to liquor licenses and liquor stores. And and when you compare those with actual retail or retail marijuana code and and obligations that we have set, well, the regulatory obligations that they have set for them in front of them and have seen both hearings. This is definitely something that I support only because and there's a lot of ways that this is worked out. And, you know, when when we said it was regulated marijuana like alcohol, there's a lot of things that are and there are a lot of things that don't to the benefit of the industry. And so as what what I've come to experience is that, you know what, we've we've we're actually regulating it, right? We're regulating a substance, right. When we do it with marijuana. I mean, it's the liquor code is antiquated and there's a lot of problems there. But, you know, here we have a direct impact and we're able to count to 13 and and become more efficient. I love my folks over here at the on the other side of the Civic Center Park. But. And try passing a bill over there to modify anything like this. And it's a three ring circus sometimes. And good luck if you can do it in that. I just wanted to say, this is good legislation. It's the right thing to do. Seeing an application get defeated.
Speaker 0: Or.
Speaker 4: Something like this, it takes a lot of work in the community. It takes a lot of work from the applicant, a lot of resources on their end. Think about it. They have somebody representing them at that. You know, it's it's a heck of an effort. And that cooldown, I think, is is a good nuance. It's a good opportunity for folks to, you know, recalibrate. And then it also allows any applicant and community to work together because for most of the part, most of the time, they're just little disagreements that people have kind of drawing themselves in their corner over. And they really didn't have the ample time or the trust or the good faith on both sides to actually meet and confer and say, hey, look, this is something that we'd actually would like to work out and reach before it even comes to a hearing. So what this does is it allows folks to recalibrate. And in that recalibration, you actually have a better dispensary, a better license, and a community that actually has ownership over that process as well to it. And that's what the whole community process was designed for, is to improve where we lack on the liquor code. Unfortunately, it takes a heck of a lot more over there to change. So being that I do support this moving forward, this is one of those times where I think this regulation is a lot better than what we do with alcohol.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: So I'm just making comments. I don't have questions, but I was at the agency meeting this Saturday. This topic came up. They took a vote in support of the amendment that Councilman Flynn was working on, including a discussion about this very point. And they referenced an application in the Sunnyside neighborhood. This one was for liquor. It wasn't for marijuana, where an applicant actually withdrew their application as they were going through the hearing process and then turned around and refiled a new one. And the concern is that the neighborhoods don't have the same resources that many of these industry folks do. And to scramble and get the signatures that are required to request a public hearing to organize the community, it takes, you know, a huge undertaking and particularly in neighborhoods that don't have the. The organization that others have. And so I think this is a reasonable request, the fact that there is no cooling off period at all for marijuana. And knowing that we do have one for. For liquor only make sense and knowing the one for liquor is two years. I don't know why we wouldn't support the same, but the request is for a year. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: This borrower.
Speaker 5: Again, I would defer to Councilman Flynn if he wishes to comment. But let me just be clear that this has exact parallelism to the liquor code. On the issue of a case where the application went to a hearing and was denied based upon a finding of lack of needs and desires, from the standpoint that that does create a two year blackout, as Ms.. Budowsky indicated.
Speaker 8: It is for a larger.
Speaker 5: Radius than the liquor code, but it still has that same element.
Speaker 8: In cases where the application went to a denial. The the new element in this.
Speaker 5: Bill is the other scenario where the application is simply withdrawn. That's only.
Speaker 8: A one year waiting period.
Speaker 5: And only for the property in question, not for a larger radius. So again, I want to be really clear about the contents of the bill. Some of it is parallel to the liquor code and some of it is not. And by the way, a good time to also say that under state law, you have a lot more discretion to set marijuana policy. A lot of what we live with in liquor policy is prescribed by state law, is immutable at the local government level. But thank goodness on the end, on the marijuana side, we do have more policy flexibility to kind of blaze our own trail, as this bill illustrates.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick note. Amendment 64 that legalized retail marijuana said that it should be regulated similar to liquor, but it didn't say identical. So I wanted to point out that the differences are 1000 feet and 1000 feet was used in my bill, because a thousand feet is consistent with the separation from prohibited locations simply to be more consistent within the marijuana section of the code in the liquor code. The distance from of separation from prohibited locations, meaning schools, daycares, etc. is only 500 feet. Therefore, the cooling off period is but 500 feet in liquor. I wanted to keep it consistent within the marijuana code and use the thousand feet basically on South Broadway. Councilman Clarke It's the difference between three quarters of a block and a block and a half. And I also want to point out that this provision, although it's not in the liquor code for a quiet period when one withdrawals , I wanted to thank Councilman Lopez I'm sorry, Councilwoman Ortega, for bringing up the Sunnyside example. The prohibition on reapplying applies only to that location, not within a larger radius. And. And. Well, that. So that's it? Yes. It only applies to that particular location. Another applicant can come in at that same address. The same applicant can't can come in at that same address. My hope and intent is that we will see what many of us up here have asked for and primarily Councilman Herndon have asked for more genuine community outreach and engagement and having cooling off periods where we do not have any right now. My firm belief is that this will encourage the industry to reach out in a more genuine fashion to neighborhoods so that they don't have to run the risk of incurring these waiting periods. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 2: Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I heard in Cashman. Kenny Lopez. I knew, uh. Ortega, I.
Speaker 3: Assessment I.
Speaker 2: Clark, I. Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I police the voting and as a result.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. The amendment passes now, Councilman Espinosa. We need a motion to publish as amended. I move the council bill 523 be ordered. Published as amended. All right. It's been moved in. Seconded.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: I have to get the.
Speaker 0: Comments by members of the council, council and clerk.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry I came in a little late. I wanted to comment on the bill as a whole. Not the amendment. But I just wanted to quickly thank Councilman Flynn for bringing this forward, for finding this hole, for helping close this gap, having just gone through with the community of mine, petitioning and canvasing effort on a license, I, I did not realize or could not imagine what would have happened had this loophole been taken advantage of. But I'm very I'm thrilled that we're closing it. And thank you, Councilman Flynn, for bringing this word. Happy to support it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I, too, want to thank Councilman Flynn for finding this and bring it forward, I think is evidenced by the support for extended hours that we just recently passed in my district and citywide. You know, the industry has proven to to sort of be capable of taking whatever we throw at it, being adapting to it and coming up with a better way forward. I think in those rare instances where you can't fine strike a balance and compromise the community, I do think it's a bit taxing to sort of have that ability to just keep trying it different ways. I'd much rather have a sort of negotiated compromise or this quiet period, so I think I'd rather see it two years, but one year is great. So with that, I'll be I'll be supportive. Thanks. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. The president, just real quickly, a finding that there is no need or desire in the surrounding neighborhood for a liquor store or for a marijuana store needs to have a shelf life. You can't suddenly have a need or desire for a marijuana center two days after it was just found that you do not. And that is the entire basis behind matching the liquor code with this quiet period, cooling off period. Thank you. And asked for yes votes.
Speaker 0: All right. I think I think you can get them. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I Gilmore. I Herndon. Cashman.
Speaker 3: Commit.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew. Ortega i. Sassaman, i. Clark, i. Espinosa. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I pushed Kosovo and as a result.
Speaker 2: Of.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Constable. Five 2523 excuse me has been ordered, published as amended. All right. All other bills for introductions are ordered. Published. We're not ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members remember, this is your last. This is a consent or bloc vote when you will need a vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call. And I don't want to provoke. Councilman Espinosa, will you put the resolution for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that resolutions be adopted and bills with one final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in the block for the following items. All Series 17 03980467047705020504045704580459046004870496050505030548. 04340462046404650468. 046905080308032804200 500 0428042904300431044690447. Oh. Right. It has been moved in. Seconded. Madam Secretary, recall.
Speaker 2: Clerk i Espinosa. I Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. I did I Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega, I says. When I was president.
Speaker 0: I saw the voting nance results. 1212 hours resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration do pass to night. There will be a required public hearing on Constable 362 changes on classification for 689 West 39th Avenue, 700 West 40th Avenue and 725 West 39th Avenue.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Retail Marijuana Code and the Denver Medical Marijuana Code to provide for a waiting period before new applications can be received or acted upon within a 1,000-foot radius of a location where a license has been denied or an application has been withdrawn following scheduling of a hearing.
Establishes a waiting period for re-application for a license for certain marijuana businesses that are denied an application or in certain cases when applicants withdraw. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-1-17. Amended 05-15-17 to clarify that the one-year waiting period for reapplication for medical marijuana center license or a retail marijuana store license in circumstances where a prior application was withdrawn after the setting of a public hearing on the application but prior to a final decision by the Director of Excise and License is measured solely from the date the prior application was withdrawn.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0362
|
Speaker 0: Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 362 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 362 be placed upon final consideration and do pass it as it has been moved in second it. The hearing for Council 362 is open. May we have the staff report? Sarah White.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm Sara. It was CPD here to present the staff report for 700 West 40th Avenue, 689 West 39th Avenue and 725 West 39th Avenue. The request is to rezone from IU oh two and Ibeju oh two to CRM 20. The subject property is in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. The property totals just over two and a half acres. And again, the request is to rezone to urban center neighborhood context mixed use 20 storey maximum height. The current zoning on the subject properties are I be you too and I you are to the zoning adjacent to the northeast is also IAU oh two. To the west is ibe u O2 to the north is C-Max 20. And to the south and east are seems 12. The existing land use in the area is a mix of industrial parking, office and commercial to the west of the subject. Property is showing it is transportation, communication, utility. Essentially the railroad tracks to the north is industrial, to the east is vacant and parking and also commercial and retail . And to the south is additional industrial parking and commercial or retail. The Planning Board heard the request at their meeting on March 15 and voted unanimously to remove to move the to recommend approval to City Council the land use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I saw this at their meeting on April 4th and voted to move it forward. All of the appropriate answers have been noticed and we did receive two letters of support throughout the public process. One from the You Can Globeville Civic Association. Number two, and one for the Globeville Civic Partners, both speaking to how this is an appropriate request for the transit oriented area. And to review criteria. We are reviewing this application for consistency against four adopted plans. Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver, the 41st and Fox Stationary Plan and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. The request is consistent with several strategies in Comprehensive Plan 2000, which is detailed further in your staff report, but it's primarily related to quality infill development, encouraging mixed use in transit oriented development, and identify areas where density and new uses are desirable. Blueprint. Denver identifies this area as transit oriented development, which is described as a balanced mix of land uses with compact mid to high density development and walkable with active street edges. It is also identified as an area of change and the requested CMCs 20 zone district has provisions that provide for all of the things that are called for in the transit oriented development description of Blueprint Denver. Additionally blueprint Denver's Future Street Classifications. The site is directly adjacent to 39th and Gallup PAYGO streets, which are on designated local, but it will be primarily served by Fox Street, which is a mixed use arterial. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan also has land use concepts in it. The subject site is outlined in the green box on your slide, and it is identified as transit oriented development. Again, it has descriptions very similar to a blueprint has in terms of mixed uses and mid to high density, walkable, pedestrian friendly areas. The Global Neighborhood Plan also identifies recommended maximum heights and the subject site is outlined in the blue box on your side and is in an area that is called for it to be 20 storeys. So therefore the 20 zone district is consistent with the recommendations in the global neighborhood plan. The 41st and Fox stationary plan also has land use and building height recommendations. The site is outlined in red on your screen and it is identified as a mixed use office slash residential use with heights of up to 20 stories. This land use calls for employment services and residential uses within walking distance of the station. The CRM x 20 zone district would provide for the allowance for this type of development, and the 20 storey maximum height is consistent with the heights called for in the 41st and Fox stationary plan. Therefore, the recommendation is consistent with the 41st and Fox stationary plan recommendations. Therefore, CPD finds that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. Do you require recommended? Rezoning would result in a uniform application of the CMC's toe zoned district and it would further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans, but also because the requested zone district would allow for pedestrian friendly development within areas close to transit, making transit more accessible, which contributes to the public health, safety and welfare. The justifying circumstances identified in this application are changed or changing conditions. And given the opening of the 41st and Fox station station area and other rezonings to similar zone districts in the area, we do find that there are change conditions to justify a rezoning. And the request is consistent with the neighborhood context and CMCs 20 zone district purpose and intent. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Sarah. All right. We have one speaker this evening that one person can come to the front. Tim Scheidt linked. Schlichting. Schlichting Yes.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Tim Schlichting with LCP Development. Our business address is 2150 West 29th Avenue in Denver. My private residence is in Aurora. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and for considering our application this evening. I don't really have anything at this time to add to the staff report, but I'm more than happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Schlichting. All right. Questions by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: So my question first is for staff. I'm sorry. Your name? Sarah. Sarah. Sarah. Has there been conversation with this applicant and other applicants on Fox Street about any expectation from the city to participate in helping address the 38th Avenue Fox, a 25 Park Avenue interchange? And if not, what are we doing as a city as we continue to? Be asked to approve high densities in this area, to look at that interchange and not wait until all of the development happens. And then we're stuck dealing with a mess that we can't, you know, we have to deal with. So can you is that something that comes up either with the applicants? And I was going to ask the application applicant the same question. If you've had this conversation with CPD as you've talked with them.
Speaker 1: Sure. And I can let the applicant say if they've had any discussions, but I can speak to some of the area wide mobility concerns in this. So the 40 person block stationary plan does have mobility and infrastructure recommendations in it. Recommendations in the plan that have already been implemented include a pedestrian and bike bridge over the rail at 41st Avenue, the anchor street pedestrian bike bridge over 38, the Anchor Street Multi-Use path from 30th 45th and the 38th AV underpass improvements. You know, when additional development increases, demand mobility projects will be constructed in accordance with the stationary plan as funding is available and several mobility projects in this station area are being considered for the geo band process that's going through right now. So that's what I have to answer the question more specifically about the interchange. I don't have anything specific related to that one.
Speaker 6: I know we have a lot of folks who live at the Regency that move back and forth to downtown. I don't know how many of them are trying to walk through Park Avenue, but that interchange, as we see it built out, as we see Fox Street built out with the projects that have come through here and requested very high densities. I'm concerned about pedestrian safety for more and more people who were selling it as a TOD site. We're going to encourage people to walk. I think to get to the west will be great because you do have the bridges, you've got the 30th Avenue underpass for people that want to go up to Highlands or any of the businesses on 38th Avenue. But for traffic that's wanting to move across under I-25 and into downtown, I think it's going to be a nightmare of an interchange. And so I'm just concerned that we're approving all or we're being asked to approve all of these applications without having any context of what's happening or what we will create to happen as a result of our actions. And so I'm. I just think it's important to be raising this so that we don't wait until it's a problem. And to my knowledge, that intersection is not in the bond issue. I can remember when the Regency Hotel was used as a nightclub, and it used to cause traffic to back up on I-25 on a on a weekend basis every weekend. And so when you start adding the volume of traffic and yes, it's a TOD site, but many of those developments are going to have parking and people will still have their cars until we become a true, multi-modal city. And so I'm just a little concerned about that. So I just wanted to ask that question and make sure that we're being very cognizant of what we are creating. I know that at this particular location we've got the the buffer of the RTD train from the cargo traffic. So the issue of, you know, how do we address proximity to rail and ensure that we're protecting life and property, I think is. Will be addressed as a result of, you know, the buffering that's already there. But I just wanted to raise that issue because I think it's something we're going to be dealing with and just want to ensure that CPD is having this conversation with the applicants that are coming into the area, that are requesting huge densities and want , you know, and yeah, it's what was planned for in the community engagement process. But so I just want to ask the applicant if you want to add anything further.
Speaker 4: Sure. I don't I know I don't have an explicit answer to your question about what the impact on the, you know, that interchange will be. I do share your concern. When we're you know, we're still evaluating different, you know, development alternatives. So when we come forth the site development plan at that time, we would have a traffic study done and see how that, you know, based on the density that we'd be bringing at that time, how, you know, what the impact would be on that and that intersection. I will I will tell you, you know, I can't make any promises along these lines, but I would tell you that as an initial project in that location is a first, you know, kind of a first mover, if you will, to to really bring a significant amount of private developments. That location. I don't think that the first project out of the ground will be 20 stories. There is precedent already with the property, the north, there's 12 on two sides, as Sara pointed out. But I would certainly if we're developing it, it wouldn't be a 20 story project. And and we're in some talks with some folks that may either acquired from us or a joint venture with us. And those folks are also thinking along the lines that we are that is the first project in that location. It wouldn't be 20 stories, but would would an eight story project have an impact on that intersection? It sure would. And until we know what we're doing, we haven't, you know, hired a traffic engineer to really, you know, kind of evaluate that. So but but definitely duly noted. We our concern as well.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I appreciate your input. Can you just clarify that this is the same corner property that has the liquor store and the new pizza shop.
Speaker 4: So that that is on the heart corner of 39th and Fox. Right. And then just to the west. Just to the west is what word still has a sign that's called power rental.
Speaker 6: So you're immediately west of that.
Speaker 4: Immediately west. And then further west of us is Wagner Rentals. That's not the property. And then our property actually wraps and fronts on the it's definitely adjacent to the the RTD station. So it's kind of L-shaped a little bit.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. You. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Espinosa and the applicant, Tim could and I apologize because there's some redundancy in your your last answer. But I did have three questions and they sort of are linked. So are you familiar with the Gold, the Globeville small area plan? And how do you intend to fulfill those plan recommendations?
Speaker 4: The Globeville small area plan or the neighborhood plan?
Speaker 0: The Neighborhood Plan, 2015.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I can't you know, I can't cited chapter and verse, but as far as I think, I think Sara touched on a number of the, you know, objectives of that to create a walkable, mixed use community. I think it calls for density around transit, which is why we think this is appropriate. Our thought is that it probably would be a combination of of multifamily, residential housing and some street level retail. It doesn't benefit from some of the frontage on Fox Street that that the the crafty fox that was that. Councilwoman Ortega just asked about it is a little bit embedded there. So as far as a a retail type of a location, you know, it it probably doesn't have a it would have to be a destination type retail. But I don't know if we'd see a lot of you know, could be in street level retail but some I mean, certainly there is a really cool building in there. A lot of what we do is repurposing old buildings. There's that there's one that we've really looked at as far as repurposing we think it'd be, you know, there's a lot of this happen in the city, but we think it'd be a really cool brewery and taproom. You know, no promises there. But we're we're very interested in that type of a use. So we like to bring some kind of retail that would activate the street. We'd like to be very sensitive to pedestrian connections. There are a couple of vacated gallery both Galapagos and 40th alignments have been have been were vacated and are part of our property. We're looking at bringing the street cred back through the property and dedicating that back to the city or make them private drives or private pedestrian ways. So we're you know, we're trying to to be very sensitive to what the plan calls for.
Speaker 0: Okay. Maybe not specifically, but do you know what the different the differences in a closed developer, developable square footage both today with the existing use zoning and after the rezoning.
Speaker 4: What would. How much square footage would be allowable under the new zoning? We've had you know, we've had what density study done by an arc by Shiraz Atkinson Rockmore in an architecture firm here in Denver. And, you know, we kind of had them look at the low, medium and high kind of scenarios. Not to scare anyone, but the high was up to upwards of a million square feet. And that assumed with some reasonable setbacks and some, again, would bring in some bringing back in through some streets. I don't I think that is the unlikely scenario. I mean, I would I would probably put the density if I if I had to guess, if I you know, if I were betting today, I would say a full build out the density would probably be on the order of half that it might be a half a million square feet between multi-family, residential and commercial. But until we've really nailed down a specific plan, you know, I can't I can't tell you exactly what that would be. I mean, where it is today under industrial I mean, kind of a right now, it's there's a lot of yard area, so there's not a lot of structures on it. But, you know, a typical density on an industrial project is maybe 0.3, 2.4 air. So I'd have to do that math what it would be, take the land area, times that ratio and then that's what. Not much. Yeah, right. Not much. So.
Speaker 0: And then the fee that the city charges for rezoning is based on the square feet of the parcel. Do you know what the fee the city charged was in this case?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry that you're talking about the linkage fee or the or the.
Speaker 0: The fee to you with your application.
Speaker 4: Oh, I don't know offhand. We wrote that check a while ago.
Speaker 0: 60,000 or.
Speaker 1: Well, it's a thousand for the first acre and 500 for any portion afterwards. And this is about two and a half, so, uh, 2500, roughly, maybe 3000.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. No further questions. All right. This concludes our speakers from four members of council public hearing of Council Bill 362 is now closed. Comments from Members of Council. Gentlemen. That's one other. Yeah, I might as well connect the dots. I'm pretty sure you all sort of did the same math. But the fee, there's a certain amount of development right in industrial land that isn't a whole lot of a new development. And when we rezone to 20 storeys and we go somewhere upwards of 500000 to 1000000 acre feet, the city only charges a fee of 2500 K for that additional development rights. And in the case since I've been on council, we've done several of these rezonings in Globeville. And the problem is, is Globeville is an area with definite infrastructure needs, as Councilwoman Ortega was expressing. And, um, and if we don't have a way to sort of address that through the development process that falls back on the taxpayers to then pay for that infrastructure in a different way. And so I just want us to be cognizant because we haven't seen massive redevelopment, even though we've given granted massive redevelopment potential over there. There was a definite vision that was laid out in the Globeville plan, and it's sort of like everyone is. I've said it before. I'll say it again. It's a mexican standoff. Everyone's sort of waiting for that developer to sort of take that leap of faith first. Um, and, and, and so it's just that what worries me is that when we do this, we grant this additional development, right? For 2500 square feet. That's more marketable land. And that money goes to the speculator that put the money down on the industrial land and then paid this fee, and then they hired consultants or did it themselves. But it's not a very rigorous process. Right. You just make the case the stationary plan lays it out for you. You just go in and ask and prove that it meets that intent and then you get this far. And so if the then property changes hands and it gets resold, that value gets sucked out of Globeville. And it could be in infrastructure, it could be in built environment, better architecture, better materials, or a flexible space down on the grade level or a grocery store that, heaven forbid, that we keep asking for. And so it's not this developer's fault. It's not it's our policies. It's our policies that create this sort of grant this this maximum flexibility with little to ask for in return. And it's just wanted to be cognizant because this is one of those things that I've been harping on, and I've tried to make the case in different ways, but I thought I finally realized, let's just let the normal course play out. And you see what that is, 2500 bucks, $1,000 per half acre or acre, anything less than an acre, thousand dollars. All you got to do with the application fee and then in the neighborhood plan and say, look, it supports 20 storeys. That's what I want. And and, you know, and so with that said, you know, you know, I'm not going to oppose this rezoning because I've supported many in Globeville. I have opposed mining Globeville as well. But I hope for the best. I hope that you guys actually start giving us both buildings and infrastructure that are much, much needed over there. But to date, it hasn't happened except for the Salazar's small little the brewery and stuff that have gone in already. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Madam Secretary, roll call. Okay.
Speaker 2: Sorry. One woman got to the wrong place.
Speaker 4: CLARK All right.
Speaker 2: ESPINOSA All right.
Speaker 4: Flynn Hi. Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Herndon. I Cashman can reach Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 6: Reluctantly.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: That's an I.
Speaker 2: I think, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I believe scores of voting and as results.
Speaker 2: Lebanese.
Speaker 0: A Lebanese council Bill 362 has passed. All right, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 366 on the floor? 66. I move the council bill 366 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and second it a public hearing for Council Bill 366 is open.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 689 West 39th Avenue, 700 West 40th Avenue, and 725 West 39th Avenue in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 689 West 39th Avenue, 700 West 40th Avenue, and 725 West 39th Avenue from I-B, UO-2 and I-A, UO-2 to C-MX-20 (industrial to commercial-mixed use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-4-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0366
|
Speaker 4: It's impractical to have a campus without adequate parking, without adequate facilities for folks who are working there and coming and coming back. Instead, they're forced to kind of park across the street or park on city streets. And, you know, it can get very frustrating when it comes to when it when we start looking at street sweeping. Right. And things like that. I mean, these are folks who are servicing our community on a daily basis. And I think, you know, their their their work, the application, the intent of the application is clear and it is absolutely needed. And can I just be frank? I'll still be Paul, but I'll be frank for a second. It's actually good to see this zone district work for the poor. The purpose that is intended for right. This campus zone district is exactly that way back in, you know, 29, 2010 when we were looking at this zone district as a potential potential zone district and what that would mean. And right away, when I looked at it, I thought, Oh, Savio home. Without anyone knowing. So being that, I just. I'll be Paul again. I wholeheartedly support the rezoning and asked my colleagues for another yes vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for the comedy hour as well as good Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just wanted to say, since you brought the visuals in, you sat through everything to get to this point. I just wanted to thank you for having brought the materials to committee and answered a thorough round of questioning there and the candor and on both what you are doing and what you were planning on doing in the future just was truly appreciated by me and I think others there. And so I just want to thank you for how you handled the process. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa and I closed this hearing as Council Bill 368. This is Council Bill 366. And I would just like to say, I know several young people who've been through the Savio house and thank you for the transformation that you've done in those young people's lives. See no other comments, Madam Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Clark. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Herndon. Cashman. Can each. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting, announce the results?
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, CONSTABLE 366 of pass. Congratulations. All right. Our last public hearing of the evening. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill three, six, eight on the floor? I move that council bill 368 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3505-3507 West 3rd Avenue and 332 Lowell Boulevard in Barnum.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3505-3507 West 3rd Avenue and 332 Lowell Boulevard from E-SU-Dx to CMP-EI2 (adding to the existing campus and unifying the zone district) in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-4-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0368
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, CONSTABLE 366 of pass. Congratulations. All right. Our last public hearing of the evening. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill three, six, eight on the floor? I move that council bill 368 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded by a public hearing. Oh, we had a councilman clerk. I see on here the public hearing for council bill 368 is open. May we have the staff report and we saw this.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Members of Council on please spoke with CPD here to present the rezoning case at 2800 West hold in place 1155 North Decatur Street and 1201 North Decatur Street as well as 1101 North Decatur Street. The rezoning application before you tonight is to rezone from PWD for 87 to CM five. As such, the property is located in Council District three, more specifically, the Sun Valley neighborhood, as you can see here close to the equator federal station area. The subject property is located off of the intersection of West Holden Place and North Decatur Street and as outlined in the dotted key there. The subject property is about 3.6 acres and currently houses a four story multi-unit building as well as some surface parking to the eastern portion of the site. As such, the request is to rezone from Puti 47, specifically the sub area two portion to C-Max five, with the specific intent to allow for medical and dental uses within the existing building. In terms of cm x5 this is an urban center neighborhood context x designating mixed use purposes five storeys with a maximum building height. In a review of the existing context, I'll run through the following. The zoning on the site is currently paid for 87 to the West. It is also Puti for 87, but a separate sub area to the north. We cm five to the east, cemex five and then to the south we have S.R. X eight. In terms of the existing land use context, the built out property is a multi-unit residential building in which mercy housing currently occupies. There's a portion that's trans communication utilities, which is Denver water utility, and then to the southern kind of finger portion that is a surface parking lot surrounding uses our office where we have the Human Services campus, multi-user unit residential as well, some industrial uses in the area. Also to the north we have the rec recreation center. So a photo on the top right is of the existing building which has since had a facelift and looks beautiful. And then to the southern portion is that surface parking lot. Surrounding areas. We do have a mix of uses of some industrial and mixed use to the south. That's a photo of some DHS property or some multi-unit townhome products in terms of the process that has brought us here today. We had planning board on March 15th with the unanimous recommendation of approval land use luti approved for this to come forward on April 4th and now we are here for City Council. In terms of public outreach, all the following renos have been notified in accordance with standard noticing requirements. As such, we have received a letter of support that has been included in the staff report packet from the Sun Valley R.A.. In terms of review criteria, I'll stop through the following. We have three applicable plans here. The first of which is comprehensive plan, which I will skim over as the further details are found in your staff report. Primarily focusing, though, on land use strategies of enhancing services where infrastructure is in place. In terms of blueprint Denver, the land use concept for the subject property is transit oriented. Development theory and development is intended to have a balanced mix of uses, whether that's residential, retail, office, commercial, etc. in a format that is compact to mid density and has strong emphasis towards a pedestrian friendly component and activates a street edge. Also finding that this is an area of change. It's an area where we want to direct growth, where we can improve that access to housing and services and reduces automobile trips. In terms of the futures reclassifications provided by Blueprint DENVER North Dakota is a mixed use collector, which is intended to provide a greater balance between mobility and transportation options, providing those connections of residential as well as commercial and industrial areas. And then we have those mixed use streets. We're also locating those higher intensity commercial retail, residential areas where we can have that significant pedestrian connections being built out to the rail station. In terms of the the stationary plan we have here, the Decatur Federal Stationary Plan, which the subject property is outlined and read as you can note there and in review of the key, this is a total station area where we're intending to encourage both the vertical as well as well as horizontal mix of land uses for this area, encouraging housing that meets the needs of families, young professionals, students, housing, the elderly, etc.. This is all in alignment with what Mercy Housing already does and wants to continue operating on the site as well. In addition to the land use recommendations, we also have urban design recommendations of which are including the maximum building height for the subject property. As indicated in this map, the subject property is recommended as a five storey maximum building height and as such the recommended or the proposed zone district of the Max five is consistent with this recommendation. So in moving along through the review criteria, CPD has found that this application is consistent with the adopted plans. We also find that this furthers the regulation uniformity of district regulations. There's no customization occurring here. We're also finding that it is furthering the public health, safety and welfare. This is primarily done through the plan implementation as intended, but also we're enabling for some additional community serving needs to operate within the tot station area that are of need and also were able to improve the pedestrian environment by introducing a cmcs zone district that has different building standards such as transparency, pedestrian entries, all of these great features that enhance the pedestrian environment that the current beauty does not speak to. With regard to the justifying circumstances, we find that not only the planning and construction and that a greater federal station area plan has justified this rezoning. We are also seeing many of the properties in the surrounding area pursuing rezonings and redevelopment in alignment with the station area plan. And as such we find that the mixed use zone district is consistent with the neighborhood context zone district purpose Intent Office. Finally, CPD recommends approval on this rezoning, finding that all criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. We have two speakers this evening from a column to the front here, Caroline Pirtle and Joe Levi. It's Pearl. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: Good evening, everybody. Thanks for having us. We're just here to answer any questions that you might have.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. I'm Joe. I'm going to I'm going to have to state your name and you know where you're from. Yeah. Just for the record.
Speaker 1: Sir Carolyn Pirtle. And I'm a senior asset.
Speaker 2: Manager at Mercy Housing.
Speaker 1: So I'm representing the ownership of Decatur Place Apartments where we're talking about right now.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Sir. Levi.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I'm Joe Levi with Azar Architecture.
Speaker 0: Where we office on Larimer Street. And I just think we've heard all the the nice and how it's compatible in the planning sense. But really we're.
Speaker 8: Providing a compatible use for the neighborhood. And there was no neighborhood opposition whatsoever. In fact, people welcomed that. So I just wanted you to know that.
Speaker 0: And I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. And you said. You said us architecture is okay. It's in the fine district nine. Okay, great. Thank you. All right, let me see. Are there any questions for members of council? Right.
Speaker 5: Just wanted to say that Oz was in District six for a good long time.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Councilman Cashman, you weren't called on in. This was all right. As you know, we've been going around tonight. The council, about three, six, eight public hearing is now closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I do appreciate your time. I wanted to thank folks who are coming tonight and in presenting you know, we've seen this in we had the opportunity to ask questions, learn about the use that we're wanting to see at the at the mercy housing site out here. Problem is, when they wanted to open up, move in, provide the service. They ran into this old stegosaurus that is a poodle. And we run into this so often. It's something out of the Jurassic period is this is just like we run into these little pods all over the place. And, you know, the most embarrassing thing is this as opposed to the city as opposed as well, too. And so when we look at, you know, eliminating these pods and putting them right in the most appropriate zone district, this is one of them. But this is also what this about. Yes. Tonight we're moving this, from what I'm understanding, moving this rezoning, adopting this rezoning would actually allow those services to be rendered. And, you know, the one thing standing in the way between health care for those residents in Sun Valley and us or in. Well. Is us basically tonight. This rezoning, this allows it to happen. The next eight weeks will see imx five and I said see a max eight. This IMX five allows this to happen, but it matches what's in the neighborhood as well too. If you if you recall, not too long ago we had the Sun Valley neighborhood plan move through. We were able to implement a big part of it down here. And it does call for these heights. It does call for this particular use. And in an area that is going to see a lot of change and but in an area that's also going to be able to keep these services here. Right. And so without further ado, I mean, I do support this rezoning. I do appreciate all of your work. And Elise, who is now an expert in the West Side zoning affairs, totally gets it. So thank you. I do support this rezoning moving forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa, just because I can contrast this to my other concerns about Globeville. This rezoning is occurring in a location where we already have the infrastructure or where it got definite plans to change it. Everything. All the reinvestment that's going in is Sun Valley. But we already have Rudy Rec Center, which is a fine regional rec center right across the street next to that Lakewood Gulch, which is a wonderful water quality slash flood protection class, 100 year dump into the Platte River sort of scenario. And we have a transit station right across the new court facility, a rail station and access to busses on a high frequency corridor on federal. And we're going five stories. And so I just wanted to complain people think that I'm against density and development or whatever. This is a place that should be going to rezone. I mean, getting higher density than what we're doing. I am I know what we're doing in this case. And, you know, we're just capturing the correcting issue with the underlying PD and and correcting this. But I just it illustrates sort of the disconnect between where we're having going from industrial to 20 storey without infrastructure and and not all the amenities that we have in this location and how we've prescribed a different sort of model this close to downtown, this close to our trail network, this close to our everything. And it's just who's in charge of that sort of thinking of this city is is an organism in a water balloon and figuring out where we squeeze here and where we allow things here, there. I mean, you could argue that it's the market, but we're not our zoning is is just all over the place. I mean, we're granting development rights where no one's building and we're we're making tweaks like this in areas where that should be that are getting they're already being targeted for earmarks. I mean, investment, the $30 million from HUD right across the street, the investment we've already done in that Platte Valley River Valley area. And it's just it's just frustrating. But I'm happy to support this because it is the right zoning for this situation. But I do wish we were thinking bigger in the Sun Valley area because it's such a opportunity once we do that waterfront and everything else that we plan on the realignment of 12th and 13th and what have you. So just because of good things. Councilor LOPEZ Well.
Speaker 4: I think that's an important point. Here's the thing. Part of the reason that this stuff can take place is because of those neighborhood plans. And I think that's what's critical. That's it's not just some plan that goes on a shelf and collects stars and say, oh, look how pretty this plan was. We paid like $100,000 for this plan. No, actually, these plans are what allows this this design to take place. Right. That and that's exactly what we were pushing in that area. I mean, the good thing about Sun Valley, it's a valley. So, you know, when you're looking down into the valley, those buildings don't look like they're five stories. They don't look it doesn't look like a Cinemax A.T.M. experience in this area. And you're going to be able to actually take a look at this and be like, oh, that's perfect. Perfect height, doesn't block any views, doesn't impede sun. It's just it is. What is the the best thing about this site is that it already has been there. And you can chalk that one up to saw Carpio. You could chalk it up to Debbie Ortega, you could chalk it up to Julie Monteiro, all the folks that had been there representing that in Sun Valley, even Ramona martinez at one point, you know, that's what that neighborhood has been designed for and it's been decades in the making. So it is no walk in the park. It's just it is easier now because it was harder than the envision. And so that's that's why I started also thinking, I don't want to prolong anything.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. And I want to thank you all for mercy. You've done amazing stuff all over the city, so I appreciate you. And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: LOPEZ All.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 7: New yes.
Speaker 3: ORTEGA Hi.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 4: FLYNN Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Cashman can eat. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting in US results. Lebanese Lebanese Council Bill 368 has passed. Congratulations. All right. On Monday, June 12th, 2017, the Council will hold a required public hearing for Council Bill 435 Changes on classification. 442 zero 140 203 4211 and 4221 Brighton in Elyria.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2880 West Holden Place, 1155 North Decatur Street, 1201 North Decatur Street and 1101 North Decatur Street in Sun Valley.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2880 West Holden Place, 1155 North Decatur Street, 1201 North Decatur Street and 1101 North Decatur Street from PUD 487 to C-MX-5, (planned development to commercial-mixed use) in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-4-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05012017_17-0515
|
Speaker 3: Great. I'll do a quick recap. Under resolutions, we have Councilman Flynn, who's called out Resolution 15 for a vote. Under bills for introduction. Nothing has been called out. Under bills for final consideration. Nothing has been called out and under pending. Nothing has been called out. Madam Secretary, can you please put the first item on the screen? 515. Councilmember Gilmore, go ahead and put the resolution 515 on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 515 be adopted.
Speaker 3: All right. It's been moved. Can I get a second? Right. It's been moved in second. Councilman Flynn, go ahead and make a comment.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I really have no comment. Just wanted to pull it out for a vote.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Thank you. See you. No questions. Comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Flynn No.
Speaker 8: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 5: Cashman. All right. Lopez. New.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 6: Ortega I black eye.
Speaker 5: Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 5: Are you still counting someone?
Speaker 3: Yeah. You missed Councilman New. Who's a no? There you go.
Speaker 5: I know. Yep.
Speaker 9: Lopez.
Speaker 3: And Lopez is not here.
Speaker 5: Looks like seven eyes, two nays and four absent. Seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, seven eyes. Two knees.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Seven eyes, two nays. Resolution 515 has been adopted. All right. This concludes the items that have been called out. We're now moving to the bills. All bills for introductions are now ordered published. We're now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills. On final consideration, council members remember, this is a consent or block vote. You will need to vote. Otherwise you're your last chance to call on an item for a separate vote. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put the resolution for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in the bar in a block for the following items. Council Bill Series of 2017 0399040004010309041904320433031 12 zero 428 zero 420 6042603690444044505160391039203940402 and 0406.
Speaker 3: All right, Madam Secretary. And all of them.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: All right. It's been moved in. Second it. Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Black I.
Speaker 5: Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Espinosa, I. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Cashman.
Speaker 2: Lopez, I.
Speaker 5: Knew. Ortega Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I please close wondering about the results.
Speaker 5: Ten eyes.
Speaker 8: Ten eyes.
Speaker 3: Sorry. I just. I just want to make sure. Madam Secretary, do we get the very.
Speaker 10: Last.
Speaker 3: Bill? I just want to make sure those in there.
Speaker 5: I thought we did.
Speaker 3: Okay. I did not hear it. And maybe that was my mistake.
Speaker 5: So it should have been. 406.
Speaker 3: Yeah. For six. Did you say four or six?
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 3: Great. Sorry. My mistake. All right. All of the resolutions have been adopted, and bills are been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be a required public hearing for Council Bill 161, as amended through the Denver Zoning Denver's zoning code to revise parking exemptions on preexisting small lots.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution authorizing and approving the expenditure and payment from the appropriation account designated “liability claims,” the sum of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000.00), payable to Molly Miranda Craig and Heideman Poor, LLC, in full payment and satisfaction of all claims in Case No. 2015CV31713, in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado.
Settles a claim involving the Denver Police Department. This resolution was approved for filing at the Mayor-Council meeting on 4-25-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05012017_17-0161
|
Speaker 3: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 161 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 161 as amended, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Councilman. Clerk, go ahead and offer your motion to further amend.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 161 as amended be further amended in the following particulars on page five, line one, strike 13 .1.9 and replace with 13 .1. ten on page five. Line three strike 13 1.9.3 and replace with 13 one dot and four. Add a new section to the bill which reads as follows Section six A except as otherwise provided in Section six B of this ordinance. With respect to certain site development plan applications, the amendments to the Denver Zoning Code adopted by this ordinance take effect on May five, 2017. B Notwithstanding Section six A of this ordinance, if requested by an applicant, a pending formal site development plan application may be processed under the provisions of the Denver Zoning Code concerning the small LA parking exemption prior to the adoption of this ordinance. The prior small loft parking exemption. If CPD receives a complete application for a mandatory concept review pursuant to section 12 .3.2.2 of the Denver Zoning Code, which was submitted in advance of a required site development plan per section 12 .4.3.3 on or before August 26, 2016, and such application sought to use the prior small loft parking exemption
Speaker 3: . Great. It has been moved only a second. Great. It's been moved. And second, it comes from members of council. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment updates the zoning code reference that changed as a result to the passage of Council Bill 17 0311. Additionally, it establishes an effective date of May five to mirror the effective date of Council Bill 17.0311. Lastly, it provides clarity that certain applications were not subject to the moratorium on small light parking exemption enacted last August, and those applications may continue to use the small shop parking exemption as existed prior to this proposed text amendment. We had a number of projects that were in the pipeline and the moratorium clearly set forward that they could remain under the rules that under which they had applied. And we just missed that. I think in the bill, I believe the intent was always to allow those to continue progressing, not to progress, and then all of a sudden have the rules changed on them. And this fixes that for the projects that are in the pipeline. And I would ask that all my colleagues please vote to further amend this amended bill. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Great. And I'll further explain. And I'm looking at CPD. I believe there are 11 projects in the current pipeline that have been talked about and agreed with with the community even before we started this process. So. That's why we're doing that. Everybody in the public, we did not want to change the rules, whatever we did on people who had projects in the pipeline. So thank you, Councilman Clarke, for bringing this forward. Councilwoman Sussman woke up, she.
Speaker 6: I said, that sound like Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: And sure enough, it is. You look really good. Okay. All right. Madam Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 2: Clark. Right.
Speaker 5: Espinosa.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Flynn. I Gilmore. I Cashman. I Lopez. I knew. Ortega. I Sussman.
Speaker 6: Well, I better not vote because I'm not sure what we're voting on.
Speaker 3: You can abstain.
Speaker 6: Oh, they keep the pipeline. Okay. I just flew in from South Carolina. And, man, my arms are tired. Yes, I had studied this and know this, so I'm going to vote II black. All right.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I police voting and as results.
Speaker 5: 11 eyes.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes. Clarks amendment to keep the folks who had prior projects out of the pipeline for these amendment changes passes. Okay, Madam Secretary, do we need to vote on 161 or do we want to wait till the public here?
Speaker 5: No. You want to open the public hearing?
Speaker 3: Great. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 161, as amended, is open. May we have the staff report? Jeff Hart. Oh. Champagne.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Karen Champagne. I'm the director of Planning Services and Community Planning and Development. I am sharing in this presentation this evening just to provide a broader context for the staff recommendation. So CPD recommends denial of this text amendment to the Denver zoning code. And in a few minutes, senior city planner Jeff Hertz and then zoning administrator Tina Axelrod will provide a lot more technical analysis and details to explain that position. However, just please understand that despite a recommendation of denial of this particular text amendment, no, that we are committed and we do share in the concerns about the issues of parking management in our neighborhoods. We want to make sure that that's important and underscored with this discussion tonight. That is why we are committed and want to state tonight that we're committed to working with our colleagues in public works in the mayor's office and of course, with the community to take a further take to do further analysis of the bigger picture issues in the bigger picture parking management challenges, and explore more holistic common sense solutions which are relevant to a variety of contexts and lot sizes throughout Denver. And to effectively explore the concerns raised during this process, we want to step outside the narrow scope of this particular text amendment, which only addresses lots that comprise 1% of our city. We are committed to near-term solutions and answering tough questions, and that includes how can we promote and expand transportation demand management and integrate TDM programs into private development and strengthen partnerships with existing transportation management associations that are already in place? They're great resources for us. We also want to help answer the questions of how do we better implement Denver's strategic parking plan throughout it, through innovations in pricing and regulations to better balance parking supply and demand. And another hard question that we want to tackle is how do we pay for major improvements to our multimodal network? So fewer people, people are taking trips by car and households can choose to own fewer cars. So in addition to a lot of these really important short term strategies that we're committed to solving, we also have Denver rights, our community driven process that will take a longer a longer term look at advancing these policies. And we are and we, of course, encourage engagement in that process. So we just want to give a little bit of that context. And I'd like to introduce Jeff Hertz, senior city planner for a staff report. Thank you.
Speaker 11: So Jeff Hurt with CPD. So why are you skipping ahead here? So the scope of this tax amendment before you tonight relates to the section of code on the screen, which is a fairly short, discrete section of the Denver zoning code that essentially says that all preexisting zone lots that are less than or equal to 6250 square feet and zoned mixed use commercial do not have to provide any parking. So this is the baseline we're working with today is a full exemption on these lots. This exemption has been in place since 2006 and it originally applied to the Main Street Zone districts, with four primarily concentrated on Colfax. And the primary purpose of that of that bill, among other purposes, was to encourage redevelopment of these small lots without assembly into larger lots. So in this image up here kind of highlights what we're talking about, this smaller pattern of development, typically 50 foot wide by 125 foot deep. And I'll talk a little bit more about that. And then in 2010, the exemption was expanded citywide to all mixed use commercial districts. I think with the recognition that these small lots of the same challenges, regardless if they're in a, you know, on Colfax or anywhere else in the city in these mixed use commercial areas. And then, of course, last year, last August, Council approved a seven month moratorium to study the issue further. And during that time, Councilman Brooks convened a steering committee of about 13 people across different disciplines affordable housing, historic preservation, community activist developers, others. And during that time, I believe they met five times over the course of late 2016, they developed a series of recommendations and input that informed Councilman Brooks's proposal that he brought to the Planning Board in February of this year. And so that proposal was for all of these preexisting small, zoned lots for the first three stories of any new buildings on these lots to be fully exempt from parking, provided that they're in what we're calling transit shared or transit rich areas. And I'll talk a little bit more about what that means here in a minute. And then all other preexisting zoned lots outside of these transit areas, the first two stories are exempt and then further existing buildings would be fully exempt. So this is the prior proposal. Planning Board voted on that proposal on February 1st of this year, 8 to 1 to approve it with the condition that city council not require any additional mandatory parking as the tax amendment advanced. And so following planning board, the Liberty Committee met three times on this issue. And then you all know the moratorium was extended by 60 days. During that time, several amendments were proposed by Councilman Clark. And that gets us to where we are today. So the current proposal that's on the books or in front of you tonight is for, again, preexisting small zoned lots, zoned, mixed use commercial, all new buildings for all new buildings. The first two stories would be exempt in these transit rich areas and for all other new buildings on other preexisting small zoned lots. The first one story is exempted. So it's a reduction in the number of stories by one under these amendments. And then additionally, for all new buildings wishing to use the exemption, they would be required to go through what's called a zoning permit with informational notice. And we'll talk a little bit more about that here in a minute. And under this amended bill, all existing buildings are also fully exempt, but further are allowed to expand up to kind of what the zoning allows a number of stories and get a full exemption. So that's the components of the bill that is before you tonight. And just a real quick overview. I know some of you have seen this before in terms of the scope of where these lots are in the city. They are less than 1% of the city's land area. There's about 3400 parcels that meet this criteria. We unfortunately don't map zone lots, so it's a big approximation, but about 3400 parcels may be eligible for this exemption, and it's actually a fair amount lower than that. When you look at the individual developer ability of these lots and whether or not they could actually use the exemption. 64% of this universe of small lots are in these newly fine transit rich areas that are in the text amendment, and about 90% of them have maximum height entitlements per their underlying zoning of greater than or equal to three stories. And they are concentrated. And we'll look at a map here in a second. They are concentrated along the city's commercial corridors all over the city, really, Colfax, Broadway, South Pearl Morrison, Road and Tennyson, others all around the city. And here's I don't want to belabor this, but if we want to come back to it, this shows the transit rich areas or transit shared areas that are defined by the text amendment before you tonight, which essentially says that if you're in these areas, you get a greater exemption. And that would be if you are within a half a mile of a rail transit station and a quarter mile of a high frequency transit corridor with with, you know, the best bus service in the city. Essentially, the public input we've received on the bill has mostly been on Councilman Brooks's bill, the prior bill that had an increase in the number of stories and different components to it. So we haven't gotten a lot of public comment at least through CPD on the current amended bill, although I know some comments came in over the weekend on this. So staff's analysis focuses on the three criteria, and the Denver zoning code were tasked to look at and reevaluate text amendments. And I'll go through each one of these briefly. Note that the the evaluation and the recommendations were based on the amendments because the staff did do an analysis and make a recommendation on the prior bill, Councilman Brooks's bill. So we're focusing the analysis on the amendments themselves. There's more detail in your staff report, certainly, but these are the three criteria we look at in terms of consistency with adopted plans. So looking at the First Amendment that's on the table, which is the reduction in the number of stories eligible for the exemption. City staff finds it's inconsistent with citywide plan policies to reduce parking requirements near transit because it would result or is resulting in an increase in mandatory parking on these lots, which staff finds is inconsistent with these policies here and others in the staff report and blueprint differ in the plan. Further on this amendment regarding the number of stories staff finds, it's inconsistent with citywide plan policies to maintain value development patterns. And I'll talk a little bit more about what that means. But we're essentially referring to the smaller development pattern and that kind of increment of development, that rhythm of development that's common on a lot of the city's commercial corridors. And the concern about sort of a threshold or a tipping point where once you start requiring mandatory parking above a certain amount, it may encourage developers to start to look at loft assembly into larger developments that perhaps break that pattern. So this is just a few slides that we have to illustrate the issue. And I don't think these are new slides for everyone that has looked at this. But essentially what we're talking about when we talk about a, you know, the space constraints that these lots have and that tipping point, what we're looking at here, I want to pull up my little laser pointer. So what we're looking at here is a is an illustration of a common small pattern. You see in Denver, I'm looking at three preexisting small zone lots, 50 foot wide by 125 foot deep. And the the image on the top or on the right shows that for most of these lots, which are primarily alley access, you could only physically fit five parking spaces. Once you get above that five parking space threshold, then you start to get into the space constraints where you're essentially mandating unless there's some other really creative way that no one has been able to figure out that we haven't seen yet. You're essentially mandating a different form of parking with tuck under parking or structured parking, because now you have to accommodate the space of the additional parking spaces and the adjacent drive aisles going into them. So there's a number of issues with that. One is that, you know, you're obviously eating into the buildable square footage of these on these lots on the first floor significantly. And then to just looking at the cost per space, that's typical of a parking space. Surface parking, like the ones in the example to the right are going to be far less expensive than structured parking that you would see at the tuck under parking scenario. So just to highlight the scenario and how it plays out with the different sort of components of the bill and the amendments to the bill and that related to the number of stories. So looking at the the prior bill, which had an exemption for the first three stories for any new building, and these are assuming that this scenario would be in that transit shed. And looking at the C.M. Zone District in this scenario, which is a very common, I believe, the most common zoning that these this universe of parcels has the prior proposal would have would have allowed zero parking would have gotten full exemption because it was three stories in the transit shed. And when you look at the the amended bill, it goes up to eight spaces. In this scenario, there's a number of scenarios of different development types. This scenario has a three story mixed use building where you have ground floor, commercial and upper floor residential. And so there's all kinds of ways to slice and dice the course. But looking at a common scenario, this is sort of what the the change in the number of stories might do to a project and kind of kick it into that that threshold of requiring more parking and creating challenges. So for the for the Second Amendment regarding the zoo, Panama, I'll let Tina Axelrod, our zoning administrator, speak to that briefly.
Speaker 6: Thanks, Jeff. Tina Axelrod with KPD Development Services and the zoning administrator for the city of Denver. So I have overview of all of our permitting staff who would have to implement this tax amendment. And we appreciate the opportunity to talk about this one particular element of the bill that will affect the everyday life of the permitting staff , and that is the introduction of a zoning permit with informational notice process attached to a determination of whether new buildings on existing small lots will get the exemption or not. Generally, staff has looked at this quite deeply and seriously, and we find that it's inconsistent with a couple of key citywide goals. One is creating a predictable zoning process, and the other is where a process is put in place with public participation that that parties and participation be meaningful. And we're finding that in this case, we can't find that that exist. We believe that the Zipkin process, the way it's structured and the amendment does not give any guidance or criteria to staff to use during the process, as the plan involves a staff review after several steps of notification to the public and an invitation for public comment to take all that information and decide whether one the request is meeting the requirements of the code. So in this case, is it a new building and is it on a small lot that should be easy enough? And then the additional criteria of whether the proposal will have adverse impacts on surrounding properties that cannot be mitigated. And it's that part that's going to be unpredictable for applicants. There's no guidance for staff as to what those impacts are that we should be looking for. Generally, the types of impacts we hear about is on the public right of way and the impact of on street parking, which zoning does not have jurisdiction over. So we couldn't condition an approval to provide more on Trey Parker or to mitigate that impact. Similarly, on the public engagement, the invitation of public comment, what we've seen mostly again address a lot of issues that zoning doesn't have jurisdiction over.
Speaker 8: If there's an impact.
Speaker 6: On the demand for on street parking, we can't really address that. That's kind of embedded in the amendment itself that there probably will be some impact if you don't provide it on site, maybe people will need it off our site. And that creates perhaps a false expectation to the public that their comments and complaints will affect an outcome that might already be pretty straightforward otherwise. So together with that, I'll turn it back to Jeff, and I'm happy to answer any questions about that.
Speaker 11: So here's just a couple of the the citywide planning policies pointing to the discipline issue as well. So the second criteria, so there's first the consistency with adopted plans. The second is regarding public health, safety and welfare. On this criteria, State finds the proposed amendment does not further the public welfare. On balance, with looking at all these issues, because, one, it increases the challenges to redevelop small zone lots, especially those in transit rich areas. Two, that the small pattern is a valued community attribute and the proposal may lead to increased assembly of small lots. And third, by making the redevelopment more challenging on these lots, it will likely detract from the city's goals to build more affordable housing. And the last criteria uniformity of district regulations and restrictions, fines. This is consistent because it will result in new regulations applied consistently across preexisting small zone lots zone mixed use commercial. So CPD does recommend denial of the bill, finding that two of the three text amendment criteria are not met. In addition to the inconsistency with the with the Planning Board's recommendation and the steering committee process as well, but mainly the text amendment criteria. I'm glad to answer any questions.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. We have 22 speakers this evening and I'm going to ask that we reserve this front bench. Even staff of the staff can sit right over there and we can get all the folks on this firm. But first five to call you up right now. Margie Valdez, John. Ricky George, male. And Joe Berrios. Let's see. One, two, three, four. And Sharon Nunnally. Five. First up is going to be Margie Valdez. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Good evening, Council. I am pleased to speak before you tonight in support of the adoption of Bill 17 161. I speak on behalf of Inter Neighborhood Cooperation and the Zoning and Planning Committee, which I am the Chair of December 3rd, 2016 32 to 0 at the zoning and planning meeting. Proposed language for small parking exemption. Language presented by CPG was confusing and members could not approve the proposed zoning amendment. That vote was 32 to nothing. On January 14th, 2017, the vote at the delegate meeting, the delegates voted 42 nine to extend the moratorium. March 2nd, 2017. Zoning and Planning Committee Members voted to support. Councilman Clark's amendment. The vote was 27 nine. April 3rd, 2017. Delegates were advised to that I would be sending thank you letters to both President Brooks and Councilman Clark for their leadership with regard to the small to the small lot exemption and appreciate all the effort that they have put into this. I and C is most appreciative of the Zoning Zep pen process. We understand we don't. Neighborhoods are not going to be able to have a veto process, but it gives us an opportunity to engage in conversation with the developers and to hopefully mitigate some of the impact to the neighborhoods. But we do understand we do not have veto power in our opinion. The proposed ordinance balances the concerns of the neighborhood and the developers. It takes into consideration the impacts to the neighborhood, and it is a win win solution. It supports the ordinance adopted by this Council last week. Concerning environmental issues which impact this precious planning. We urge Council support for a bill 17 161 the the intent of i n c that has always been to support the proposed ordinance of Councilman Clark. And we have never wavered in our support of that proposed ordinance. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Valdez. John Rickey.
Speaker 10: Hello. My name is John Ricky. I live at 945 Washington Street in Mr. News District. I'll start by stating stating a simple fact. If council votes to increase parking minimums, it is voting to increase housing costs, whether affordable or market rate or luxury. There will be fewer new units on small lots and they will be more expensive. Every dollar spent housing cars is a dollar not spent on housing people. Every dollar spent on unneeded parking is a dollar not circulating among local business. Every dollar spent to store a car is a dollar not spent buying shoes or eating out or paying for medication or being saved for retirement. Adding parking requirements, by definition, adds to the cost of living in Denver and reduces our quality of life. Council has repeatedly stated its preference for less driving and more walkability in our neighborhoods. But here council is focusing solely on the desires of homeowners to protect their use of the commons for their car storage. All other citizens. Those too young to drive. Those too old. Even the working poor. All their needs for affordable housing, safe streets and walkable destinations within their neighborhoods are being put aside to protect the parking privileges of a few lucky property owners. Why is council considering a vote today to protect a preference for free street parking over the need for affordable housing? Why is space for parking cars more desirable than space for small neighborhood businesses? This isn't just unfair, it's bad economics. Even The Economist magazine, which is no bastion of lefty urban utopianism, recently ran an article decrying the damage done to cities by parking minimums, respected academics, authors and city planners from Donald Shoup to Jarrett Walker to Charles Miron have all pointed out the increased cost and decreased livability that comes with parking minimums. I call on you not to let the potential scarcity of parking determine Denver's future. We deserve better than that. I urge you to remember the pictures of downtown when parking was considered more important than people or places. Denver deserves better than that. If we prize parking above affordable housing, more than walkability, greater than the needs of small business, and consider it more important than the livability needs of our youngest, oldest and poorest citizens, then we are not looking to the future and we are not building an equitable or sustainable city. Don't vote for increased housing costs. Don't vote to subsidize car ownership. Don't vote to continue the failed transportation policies of your predecessors. Don't vote for this amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Ricky. George. Male.
Speaker 9: Good evening, city council members, and thank you for allowing us to have this opportunity to address this issue. My name is George Male. I reside at 1075 South Garfield Street in beautiful Corey Merrill, District six. I'm going to cut to the quick. All of you were apprized of the results of the i.n.s. citywide survey. Encompassing all the major concerns of your constituents. All of you were met privately on the results of that citywide survey. And if you'll recall in that survey, the number one issue was extreme, unbridled development. And if you recall, all of you solved this on your meeting with the ANC representatives on this survey, 70% of constituents noted unbridled. Concerns on that. Also the number four pick. Was parking. You all remember this, don't you? From. From the meeting we all had. So bear that in mind. What you decide here will have ramifications that will affect the city for generations. And all indications are that the automobile will still play a part in that. Unlike past city councils, we, the voting citizens of Denver, hold you responsible now for the protection of residential neighborhoods and smart development. You are accountable to us, not CBD, not excise and licensing. You're accountable to us. And we will remember every vote that is cast that does not take into consideration the protection of our neighborhoods. You. Your respective council districts have spoken in regards to their concerns. It is up to you to leave them of those concerns here today. Now, I have spoken to you before about perception of developers having sway in this city. But we have the votes and we will get the votes. It's time for you to tell your constituents, we hear you, we agree with you, and we are going to do what's right for you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Joe Berrios.
Speaker 6: Hi. Oh, good evening, City Council.
Speaker 8: So I was here seven months ago now, I guess when we introduced the moratorium and I talked about this various quantities.
Speaker 3: No, just. Just say your name.
Speaker 6: Oh, okay.
Speaker 3: Residents for.
Speaker 6: Joe.
Speaker 8: Berrios and I now live at 1131 28th Street. Okay. Do I get a restart now? All right. Okay. I'll give you a couple more.
Speaker 2: Seconds.
Speaker 8: There. So I was here a couple months ago and I talked about how important this decision was to my family. So I just want to catch you up. What's happened with my family since then? So we were living at 1950 Logan Street in a one bedroom apartment that cost us 1300 dollars we were renting. We needed a bigger place because we were having a baby. And so we started looking. We couldn't afford anything in that neighborhood. And so we moved to another neighborhood. And then that same apartment rented for 1700 dollars, and it went in one day. So it just. Just think about that. For one, it went up $400 and was gone in one day. And so when we talk about this parking exemption, there's no decision that you make that's in a vacuum. So if you think that this doesn't affect affordable housing, please think again. I received a response when I emailed a few of you that this is considered a false narrative because developers aren't required to provide affordable housing as related to these exemptions. But that negates a basic supply and demand principle, right? If they're required to provide parking, the cost of their projects goes up. They pass those costs along to the customer, which in this case is the renters, and then we end up paying for that cost. So our costs as families, as workers go up. Now, I've heard a lot of you talk about sustainability.
Speaker 6: And transit and pedestrians and.
Speaker 8: Workers and families. This is a decision that affects all of those. You cannot make this decision in a vacuum. So while some folks here are defending their right to park their car, I'm here defending my right for my family to be able to afford where we live. Those two shouldn't be the same. So I ask you to please consider what you're doing to the housing costs when you make this decision. Don't forget about us. We may not be as important as somebody's car. That. I hope that's not the case. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Ms.. Barrios. Sharon Nunnally.
Speaker 6: Good evening, council members. My name is Sharon Nunnally. I live at 1643 North Humboldt Street. I have been involved with many boards and commissions in this city and I was on the planning board when the current code was adopted. The zoning code is a fluid document that sometimes requires. Adjustment for real issues in real time when the code was being rewritten. Throughout the process. The public and property owners were reassured that they would have an opportunity to address things that might become problems in the future. Things that were not working, things that might never work. So I think that that was a very particularly important process, part of the process, and it made people feel more comfortable about the code since it was really different from Chapter 59. One of the things, though, that I am really happy about is that the process of yes, we are going to look at things is indeed working. The planning staff has a very hard job. I understand it and I know that is hard to get to some form of compromise on complex issues like this one. This is not just about people wanting to quote unquote, keep parking. That is not the issue here. The issue here is how do we move forward in this city and bring good development? We can do it with limited parking, but we do still have some challenges. Our transit system is not there yet and we've got a long ways to go with that. And unfortunately, the city does not control our transit system as it exists right now. So we have come to you with an amendment that I think has been vetted with the appropriate agencies, with council. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. However, we have to start somewhere and do something. The beauty is that if this doesn't work, we can still work on it. And that is critical. It will not cause developers to build more or less housing that's going to be affordable, but I certainly believe that it will cause them to be more creative in getting us to some more and better housing. I urge you to support Councilman Clarke's amendment. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Lenawee. All right, Ben Gerhart, I'm sorry. Going to call the next five up. Mr. Rickey, you can head back. Ben Gerhart, Craig Damon, Charlie Bosch, David Engel in two, three, four and Gertie Grant. Mr. Gerhart, you're up first. Good evening, Ben Gerhart. I live in District one at 3931 Julian Street. And just wanted to thank counsel, really. I'll be short and sweet for making that amendment on projects that were.
Speaker 2: Submitted prior to the moratorium. Appreciate it. We move forward with good faith and knowing that you guys supported that. So that's it.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Craig.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Craig Deming and I reside 1744 Vine Street. I'm here to speak on behalf of the Uptown Urban Design Forum. As most of you know. The forum includes representatives from Kaiser Permanente, National Jewish and St Joe's Hospitals, Presbyterian Saints, Luke's Hospital, Children's Hospital in Denver, and various registered neighborhood associations adjoining them, including San Rafael and Whittier Neighborhood Association, at the forum meeting last week. The representatives present voted unanimously, unanimously to have me represent them at this public hearing and to request your vote in favor of the small text amendments you have before you. In doing that, we would like to express, on behalf of the Forum our gratitude for your long and careful deliberations and the shape you've given to this text amendment language. Excuse me. Over the past 12 months, the forum has several times voted and sent letters of support. First, for the small lot moratorium, which you passed unanimously in last August, and then for development in various committees and in council of the Text Amendment language you have before you. We feel it goes a long way in providing a fair balance between the hospital's own neighborhood and developer interests. When Reform first began consideration of its importance. One thing that stood out for our representatives of our medical care institution was the growing importance of the many new and diverse 17th Avenue restaurants and businesses which are at the point of an important amenity for our patients, family and staff. The residents, particularly on Humboldt, Franklin and Gilpin Streets, provide essential overflow parking support for those restaurants and businesses which do not have parking lots themselves. We welcome your votes in favor of this balanced language text amendment, which will help to maintain the success of that mutual support between our health institutions, with their patients families, the excellent diversity of our 17 avenue businesses and our neighborhood residents. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr.. Charlie Bush.
Speaker 8: Hello. And thank you. My name is Charlie Bush. I live at 715 South Sherman Street, which is one quarter mile less than a quarter mile from the I-25 and Broadway station, about a half mile to the Alameda station and one block from the zero and zero L line. I live right smack in the middle of all these big transportation quarters you're talking about, with the exception of Paul Lopez. This is a pretty new council and I've been gone for a couple of years. So let me give you my credentials. I have been working on transit oriented development and parking and traffic issues since 2005. I have worked on the first three of four transit oriented developments in the state in in the city in county of denver. I know more about traffic and parking than any i.t. Geek ever really wanted to know. And i say this just because of that. You know, i'm not just somebody trying to protect the parking in front of my house. I mean, looking at this large the larger picture for a long time, i'm in support of this bill with its amendment, even though it will further crush my area of my neighborhood. I don't think this bill and the amendment go far enough. I see it as a first step. You know, I've been hearing the ongoing thinking push by developers that just if you just don't build parking, then people will get there and they won't use their cars. I keep hearing about the strategic parking plan and that millennials won't own cars because they're a different generation. Supposedly by now, we should have been all driving bicycles, scooters and skateboards. This makes me very weary. Let me tell you about my corner of near I-25 and Broadway. I live on one of those little blocks that has a bungalow every 3700 or. We only have 37 feet on the front. I have 18 different little townhomes along exposition between Lincoln and Logan. In addition, we back to Lincoln and there are a bunch of formerly illegal bungalows that were illegally put into smaller and smaller and smaller units. And guess what? They mirror exactly what you're talking about. Lots of little units with no parking. And you know what? They're all millennials and they all have cars and they all try to park on our street. We already have heavy parking issues with this. Then RTD took out the Alameda parking and said, Oh, don't build the parking. They'll find other ways to get there. Yeah, you know how they get there? They park on our streets and then they go to I-25 and Broadway. The last zoning code provided mixed use combined and consolidated parking, which was supposed to be up and down Broadway. It has never happened. Responding to the request, all of the neighborhoods. We did do a parking plan from Alameda North to try to alleviate some of the parking of all of those businesses into the neighborhoods. It has provided a little relief, but according to people there, not much. We haven't had anything from Alameda South. What we are experiencing is an increasing incidence of violence in the parking area. So far it has only been property damage. You might not hear about it because right now it's just taking the form of nails in tires and keys on cars. I've had both. Now, for me, it doesn't matter that much because my car has sat outside for 20 years and doesn't have a whole lot of paint on it. You know, so that big scratch that I now have down the side of my car. You know, they had to work pretty hard to put it there. The last time that I had to fix a tire because I had to park a street over and I had to leave it there for three days was just three weeks ago. And I'm hearing the same thing up and down. Sherman and Sherman and Grant all the way to Alameda, especially around Alameda. Don't swallow the pill that says if you don't build that, everybody will take transit. I'm not seeing it. And I've been doing this for 12 years. It's getting worse. It's getting vicious. And it's getting dangerous. Again. I do support this bill and the amendment, but please take it as a first step. Please do not swallow the pill. If you don't build it, everybody will take transit. It might happen 20 years in the future, but it's not happening soon. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mrs. Bush. Uh, David Engel can. All right. I'm sorry. Let me see here. Gurney Grant.
Speaker 8: Good evening, council members and thank you very much for the opportunity to address you tonight on this issue. My name is Gertrude O'Grady. Grant and I live at 242 South Lincoln Street in Denver. I've lived there since 1997. I'm on the board of the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association, the boundaries of which are I-25 to Speer and downing to Broadway. And I'm here tonight to tell you that by a vote of 12 to 0 two zero between Wednesday, April 26th and Saturday, April 29th, the board voted by email, pursuant to our bylaws, to approve a motion to support the compromise ordinance, amending the zoning code to provide.
Speaker 6: The off street parking.
Speaker 8: Exemptions for preexisting small lots. We've been discussing this for over a year and a half on our board and on our zoning committee. And we recognize that this is a compromise. It's not what everybody wants, but it's a whole heck of a lot better than it was before it before this amendment. Personally, while I completely support the admirable goal of reducing auto use and encouraging everybody to use alternative ways to get where they want to go, one major alternative for people in my age bracket is public transportation.
Speaker 6: And to call it enhanced transit doesn't make any sense to me when I'm standing there in July with ice.
Speaker 8: Cream dripping out of my bag waiting for the zero bus to go home from the supermarket. Denver doesn't have what I would call an enhanced transit zone. Secondly, many of my children's friends who have moved to Denver for job opportunities came not only for jobs, but because there's recreation in the mountains. And guess what? You can't get there on a bike, at least not.
Speaker 6: Within a day. And you can't.
Speaker 8: The only way you can get there is a car. So they save their money and they buy a car. They want cars to get to the mountains.
Speaker 6: We don't have a transit system.
Speaker 8: Not only within the city of Denver, but enough to get people up to one of the main reasons that people have moved here, which is recreation. So I urge you, please, to support the ordinance amending the Denver zoning code to revise the parking exemption for preexisting small lots. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms.. Grant McCall. The next five up. Bob Heckman. John. Joseph Nieman. Tricia. Hutch. Joseph. Chip. Capella and James Davis. Bob Hickman. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Council President Bush, Brooks and council members. I'm Bob Hickman. I live at 291 South Kilbourne Street in Denver. Tonight you have before you a bill born of the moratorium molded by the small committee, chiseled by the original bill brought by Councilman Brooks. And polished by the subsequent amendments brought by Councilman Clerk. It seems to me there are two choices this evening pass this bill, or practically speaking, the moratorium will end and small lots are back to a full parking exemption. This bill is balanced. It most likely doesn't satisfy any interests entirely, but it does represent the best approach for an interim solution while a citywide transportation and parking management plan can be developed and implemented. This balanced bill weighs several major interests. It does require less parking than for small lots than would be required for a typical larger lot a step towards fewer cars and less car ownership. The bill provides significant developer relief from parking constraints inherent in small lots. It encourages a developer to actively engage in the parking solution for their project, such as providing minimal parking and taking advantage of existing reductions, like a 25% reduction for being in a transit area. 20% for building affordable housing, a five for one trade off for car share, five spaces, one car share. These are significant things that a developer can pursue to reduce his parking requirement and help that project get built. It provides neighborhood relief from parking being forced to the streets where they live. It also provides notice to potentially impacted neighborhoods for a given project. And very importantly, it sets up a scenario that will provide incentives for all interests to engage in finding a better transportation and parking management plan as we move forward. We will all have a stake in making sure this process is undertaken efficiently and expeditiously. On the other hand, if this bill does not pass, the moratorium will expire. And we are back to the language allowing a full parking exemption. All the issues from projects that spawned the moratorium are still in place and could be repeated hundreds of times throughout Denver, including those of, quote, unintended consequences, unquote. No neighborhood notice is required. No process is established to arrive at a solution with greater emphasis for all projects, not just those on small lots. There are exciting and far reaching mobility issues, solutions in our future, whatever they may turn out to be. It will be several years. Further effective implementation prototypes will be developed and tested. Refinements will be made with retesting. Impacts will be measured. But we will get there. Probably not in my lifetime. But we will get there. As I've stated to you before, I believe in balance. And even more firmly, I believe in evolution, not revolution. Let's prepare a thoughtful plan and move forward to its goal in a measured way, step by step. I urge you to pass this bill this evening, and thank you for allowing me to speak.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Hickman. John Joseph Neiman.
Speaker 2: Yeah. My name is John Joseph and I live at 2786 South Wolfe Street. Denver, Colorado is my home.
Speaker 3: I'm a native.
Speaker 2: I've seen the way our city is changed. And what I want to talk about today is a bit about the process that you guys have gone through in order to come to this bill and show some appreciation for the work that you've put into taking what was kind of came about suddenly and turned it into an opportunity to talk about one of these big issues in our city. As George May alluded to, parking and density are some of the major concerns of our neighborhoods, and those concerns have been talked about at length in the formation of this amended bill. And I think that process was worthwhile. And bringing this bill to city council tonight was worthwhile. So what I'm asking as a citizen and also as the president of the Denver Neighborhood Cooperation is that you guys respect the amount of time and effort that community has put in to discussing this and that you guys have put into discussing and coming up with a better solution short term and allowing for an opportunity for us to become better at managing parking long term. So I really commend us for taking this small exemption in a small way and turning it into a bigger discussion and one that I think has benefited the city and benefited neighborhoods as far as I can tell. So thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Newman. Tricia Hook. Sorry if I mispronounced that.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Councilman. President Brooks Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Tricia Huth.
Speaker 8: I live at.
Speaker 6: 1633 Humboldt Street. I would like to speak to the conversation that's been going on that was addressed in the Denver Street Blog's article, and it's it was entitled Simple Data Shatters.
Speaker 8: There Is No Parking Myth.
Speaker 6: The article says that there's an average of 187 spaces available in a three block radius of 16th and Humboldt. The numbers are from a parking inventory by public works and are a snapshot of three times of the day 5 a.m., noon and 7 p.m.. The respective totals of available parking are 256, 168 and 138. Really. I live right in the heart of this and I have never.
Speaker 8: Seen anything like that. A couple of problems with with this citation.
Speaker 6: First of all, there's no description.
Speaker 8: Of what the actual.
Speaker 6: Area was. Is the radius based on north south blocks, which are.
Speaker 8: Considerably longer.
Speaker 6: Or east west blocks which are.
Speaker 8: Shorter?
Speaker 6: There's no description of the actual total spaces. There's no way to calculate the percentage of spaces occupied. And is the three block radius a reasonable distance from a parked car to a residence? I can tell you from where I live, I'm locked in by a three lanes of one way traffic on 17th Avenue and four lanes of two way traffic on Colfax.
Speaker 8: So if I go three blocks in either direction, I would have to.
Speaker 6: Cross one of those main, main areas. And we did our own survey over the course of dates from from April 9th to April 29th. And we sampled for four blocks, a stretch of two blocks each, making a total.
Speaker 8: Of ten blocks. There were 11.
Speaker 6: Samples taken in the early morning, late morning, early afternoon and evening and 10 p.m.. And the average availability in those eight square blocks was nine spaces. How much time do I have left? I raised my children in this neighborhood. It's always been an issue.
Speaker 8: When I would pull.
Speaker 6: Up with groceries and children in car seats, it was it was always this weighing, do I take the children in first? Do I take the groceries in first?
Speaker 8: It's only going to get worse. It's going to be very.
Speaker 6: Very difficult for.
Speaker 8: Families to live in these conditions with this parking deprivation.
Speaker 6: So I am asking you to vote in favor of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Most of all right. Joseph Coppola. Coppola.
Speaker 9: Thank you. My name is Chip Coppola. I live at 1410 South Pennsylvania Street. I was on the steering committee, as you know. Councilman Brooks and Councilman Cashman for the old South Pearl Street area of Platt Park. I'm here to support the bill as amended. If the bill hadn't been amended, I would not have been able to stand up here and say I support it because the changes in particular the Z pin and lowering the height were so critical to what we believe in. Our neighborhood is necessary. We have on the 14 and 1500 blocks, we have 11 restaurants. We have a 16 unit micro building going up. And I know that the merchants there are wondering, what are we going to do? Where are we going to go? We just went through with Cindy Patton and staff a two year process of trying to figure out the parking in our neighborhoods. And it's because of amendment that we can support this and would look forward to it. And we hope that you would adopt it. One thing I would just like to point out, having to do with Mr. Hurt's presentation about what you can do on this size lot here and there. We have one double lot that is under development right now on Pearl Street. That is 16 units and they're providing either seven or eight parking spaces. I'm a real estate attorney. I have a client that's going through the process and she's putting eight units with eight parking spaces on a double lot. Economically, it's still works. You just don't need to be greedy. So thank you very much for your support and all your hard work. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Ms.. James Davis.
Speaker 2: Good evening. How you guys doing? It's good to see you. I want to thank you for your time. This has been a really engaging process. I've been watching at home. As I did it, I knew it. Thank you for stopping me. James Davis. 2380 Ivanhoe.
Speaker 11: Street. I told myself it wasn't.
Speaker 2: Going to do it either. I told myself and there I go. 2380 Ivanhoe Street. I'm a millennial. I sold my car when I moved here. Hey, Kendra, it's nice to see you. I sold my car when I moved here. So we're going to talk about actual experiences. You know, anyone cases? I am. I am that person that those developers point to who rides his bike every day and makes 60% of his trips via bicycle. So we do exist and we may seem like unicorns, but we are out here. We're right here. But on a more serious note, you know, as somebody who was raised by a single mother, somebody who was raised in a low income household, I always ask myself the question. How does this impact working people? How does this work impact people that are of the working poor who are trying to make it in Denver? You know, and identify one key area where this is important to them. And that's in the affordable housing domain. You know, we've talked a lot. We talked a lot. A lot of people have brought this up. But I really wanted to talk about that in the public record, because I think it's really important to note that when you require more parking, it does make developed more expensive. It makes it harder to develop affordable housing. The recent Obama administration report that I sent to all of you today via email, the housing development tool kit look in your emails, it's all in there. One of their key strategies is to reduce on excuse me, reduce off street parking requirements because it has the cost of that parking makes it very, very difficult. It just increases, you know, costs of housing in general. You know, it's a it's a simple thing. The even the Urban Land Institute also chimed in on this. That's another report I sent along to you all. They also said that one of the key strategies to increasing the affordable housing supply is reducing off street parking requirements to reputable organizations. Please peruse those reports at your leisure and feel free to contact me if you have any questions about them. The empirical evidence backs this point. It's a very simple point that when you reduce parking requirements, it makes things more affordable. They've done this in Seattle. There's great anecdotal discussion in that report. The White House Housing Development Toolkit that talks about Seattle's experience of this, they actually talk about Denver and point out Denver and their recent work to reduce parking requirements in their zoning code as a best case. I want to echo something that Councilman Brooks said in this process. He said no other city is doing this across the country. No other cities are adding parking requirements. Let's keep moving in that direction. Let's keep moving in a direction where everybody can live in Denver and people aren't priced out and forced to drive 45 minutes to an hour just to get in because they don't make enough money. Let's live in a Denver where everybody can get around and has options to bike, use, bus or walk or use car.
Speaker 3: Okay, you got it. Just in time. Thank you, Mr. Davis. All right, I'm going to call up the next five. Paul Davison, Sue Glassmaker, Eileen Feldman, Barbara Stockland Staley and Doug Geddes. All up, all to the front, please. Paul Davidson. You are first.
Speaker 2: Thank you. My name is Paul Davidson. I live at 3230 Arapahoe Street. I am in Curtis Park. I serve on the Curtis Park Board, although I'm speaking as a citizen here. And I was a member of the steering committee with Councilman Brooks and Cashman, where I opposed the original decisions in the bill. But first. I just want to thank you for your deep consideration and openness. Emails are read and responded.
Speaker 3: To and it's a testament to.
Speaker 2: Your passion. I was stunned when I heard about this parking exemption. I thought because it was about 300 feet from my house, which was an 1891 rowhouse that.
Speaker 3: Did not have alley access where I lived for 15 years.
Speaker 2: And I thought, how is this possible and why would they have this exemption in the neighborhood? I wondered why Xp-Pen Xp-Pen would not be required or it would be required for greater than 50% reductions in parking requirements, but not required for a 100% parking exemption. Why wouldn't they tell.
Speaker 7: Us about this?
Speaker 2: I wondered why would the developer claim that the people that would stay there would be car free when that's demonstrably false? Even in Capitol Hill, where there's nearly one car per household, I wondered why would large developments be allowed to take this parking exemption when it was clearly intended for small developments and then side by side, 50 units, side by side? I wondered why was it implemented on East Colfax, but never used anywhere else or never used on East Colfax? And then in 2010 expanded to citywide. For these laws that are so varied and so abnormal that even in Curtis Park, the two that are right next to each other, a completely different types of lots.
Speaker 3: Where.
Speaker 2: One really requires this exemption and the other one can take a few parking spots so long as the developer did it. And they did it by working with the city, with the neighborhood. I wondered why make claims about affordability when they're actually being sold at market rates and when micro units actually.
Speaker 10: Go for more per square.
Speaker 2: Foot than typical units?
Speaker 3: That's not true.
Speaker 2: Affordable housing. I now understand the nuances and I believe that what we're looking at tonight is a good, balanced and interim solution. And I hope that the team process will will look closely at the issues that I feel don't totally get addressed, which are retaining the existing buildings and keeping our neighborhoods character on South Coast and South Pearl and Tennyson and encouraging commercial use on the first floor to ensure that our Cemex areas are truly Cemex areas. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Davidson. Sue Glassmaker.
Speaker 8: I'm Sue Glass Maker, and I also live in Curtis Park. I think this bill is mediocre at best. It's not. It's what we have to work with and what was given to us. And but it has something going for it.
Speaker 6: It does the job. It slows things down enough so that we don't.
Speaker 8: Create a problem and we can work on everything CPD talked about. I think there are a lot more things that we could do on this small lots and it's it just needs more study and you can change this bill. You can overwrite it just like you did with affordable the portable housing bill. We changed that drastically. So you can change this again when we have something better. But for now, it's a conservative approach in that.
Speaker 6: You're not letting you're not just saying.
Speaker 8: Go, go, go do it and do it all.
Speaker 6: And then saying, Oh, we created a problem.
Speaker 8: So let's take this a little bit slower.
Speaker 6: In times.
Speaker 8: Of this unprecedented.
Speaker 6: Development and growth that we have.
Speaker 8: Let's be a little thoughtful. Now, the other thing is it's only 1% of the lots. My councilman pointed that out to me. And if it's only 1% of the lot, how is how is 1% of the lots going to fix the affordable housing problem in Denver? I don't think it's going to be that 1% that really makes the difference. And I don't think it's going to hurt the development community that 1% of the lights cannot be maximized to the absolute highest level. So I don't think there is a problem passing this bill, and I would encourage us all to continue and do better . And I do think there is better out there. But I also don't think it's going to hurt us to pass this and it will help us. And I thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Ms.. Glassmaker, Eileen Feldman.
Speaker 8: Yes. Hi, my name is Eileen Feltman. I also live in Curtis Park and I am up here to say support the zone lot parking exemption amendment as it was presented by Councilman Clark in Detroit. Quite truthfully, I don't think it I think it's a decent compromise. I don't think it addresses all the things that are important. But it's a great start. And I urge you all to do the same and support this. You know, I know we all want greater opportunities with with regard to affordable housing, attainable housing, neighborhoods, sensitive and responsible development, and of course, a significant reduction in the use of car ownership and usage. However, the elimination of parking requirements at this time will not do this. Not right now. Denver is not there yet. We have a lot of things to work on. With the exception of the East Colfax corridor, we do not have in Denver other high frequency transit opportunities for citizens. Even on Welton Street. It's a little short rail line that goes to nowhere, that runs infrequently for people to be able to get to work, to school, whatever. It's not there yet in Denver has the opportunity to let this be a place to start. Um, one of the things that I've noticed is in fact with each regional train addition, teams like local bus service is eliminated. That actually puts low income people at reduces opportunity for getting to work, getting to school, whatever the responsibility is, and actually makes people more car dependent. So I think what we need to do is pass this and as Sue and other people pointed out, this can continue to be a work in progress along the lines. I think that Denver really needs to take the opportunity now to really start looking at a really comprehensive city bus service as RTD continues to become more regional in less and less serves the inner city population and is where we really need to make some of these parking exemptions really contingent on true affordable housing opportunities. Quite frankly, developers are just using too many developers are using the opportunity to max out their build. When you have 350 square foot market micro units going for close to $1,000, that's not affordability. That's exploitation. So let's slow this all down. This would be a really good place to start. And we have opportunity to have more conversations and to refine this further. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Ms.. FELBER. Barbara Stockman. Celia, I think I've seen you before.
Speaker 8: Hi, I'm Barbara Stockman. Celia, I live at 1003 Emmerson Street in Capitol Hill. Good evening. Members of the City Council. I am here representing Goddess. And he was when I left the city about a year ago. I was he was one of my first clients and I was hired to help him through the landmark and the neighborhood processes. He is the developer of D Line, which is 3148 Stout and 3021 Downing in the Curtis Park historic district that uses the smallest parking exemption. And just I just want to give you a brief snapshot of what this process is look like for for him. He purchased the property and fall of 2015. These were lots that were not being snapped up. They were they had a lot of issues. They had were in poor condition with semi abandoned buildings. He worked on them and filed for concept review in June of 2016. There were a lot of neighborhood and landmark commission issues because it is in the Curtis Park historic district. So he worked with the neighborhood, went many rounds with the neighborhood, and LPC resubmitted his concept on August 24th, 2016, got the landmark commission first round of approval in September of 2017. Continue to work through building fire code issues as well as additional landmark and neighborhood issues. Eventually got the landmark second approval on February 21st just this year, filed for site development plan in early March, got comments back in April and is slated to log in for permits this week, May 3rd. All of this. This has been nearly a year since the first concept review, but we greatly appreciate the public and design review process. I think it's made the project better and it's going to be compatible and a great addition to the Curtis Park neighbors. Having said all that, we greatly appreciate Councilmember Clarke's amendment added to the. Today to allow applicants such as the goddess who are midstream in the development process to operate under the existing zoning code. If this bill passes tonight, this amendment would allow developers who have been operating in good faith under the process to move for and not have to circle back and be subject to a new set of zoning rules and processes. Additional Process. While we have no comment or opinion on the bill, we greatly appreciate your support for the May 1st Amendment. If the bill is passed tonight, thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Steel, and come visit us again. All right. Doug Harris is not here. The last two, Keith Pryor, John Hagan. Come on up to the front.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Keith Pryor, 2418 champion Curtis Park. One staff does not support this. That's a huge red flag to me. Huge red flag. You've done a lot of work. There's a lot more work that needs to be done. Most of the speakers said that this is a great first start, but it needs to be amended. There needs to be more things done to this to actually make it work for our city. People have talked about affordable housing. Well, it may not necessarily be related to the parking issue. You only have so many mixed use districts in this city currently, and as a result, everyone wants to live in them. Guess what? Your price goes up in those desirable, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods. We need to create a lot more of those, which by having this go and past today, you're denying those opportunities to create other desirable areas in the city to help combat our affordable housing crisis because only people want to live in mixed use areas that are walkable. It doesn't matter if you have a car or not. This is where we want to be. It's clear. And if you're telling me that Colfax Morrison are not appropriate places to have mixed use development, where is clearly a lot of residents are concerned. They're adjoined to mixed use districts and that putting a lot of parking pressure on them. Why are they living there? It's a mixed use district. There's going to be tradeoffs. And so really, we need to be focusing on this particular bill to address the issue. You're not requiring or incentivizing mixed use products. You're saying this can be a one use product. Sure. You're going to have a lot more parking if it's only micro units because you're not having this bill include or incentivize because the banks are only going to lend on basic, surefire things. And so unless the city is requiring the developer to do it, the bank is definitely going to go with the least risk and only lend on things that are a sure fire piece. So you need to be pushing the pressure on the developer to do what's right to help affordability, to create these mixed use districts throughout our entire communities. Let's see here. So that's one piece of it.
Speaker 10: Deal with the existing zoning in these neighborhoods. Clearly, we have a lot of neighborhood plans.
Speaker 2: We're working on new neighborhood plans. If this is an inappropriate zone, if the heights inappropriate, then let's let's work on that. Let's not sit here and talk about parking. Obviously, if the mixed use district is not appropriate and again, most of these lots fall within existing mixed use places. So they're clearly appropriate. So I don't think that this particular bill is addressing the issue and really needs to have a lot more sustained, sustainable piece on what's going on. So I oppose this. I think that staff red flag, we need a lot more work on this and I think it should be done.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Pryor. John Hagan.
Speaker 10: Hello, counsel. Thank you very much for your consideration tonight. My name is John Hayden. I am the president of Curtis Park. Neighbors, you've heard a lot from our residents tonight who have worked very hard on this because of the D line project that was proposed in our neighborhood. And I'm very proud of them for the work that they did. And actually over a year process, bringing us a development that that ultimately will get built, will be complementary to the neighborhood and will provide, I hope, affordable housing with fewer parking spaces. So that that actually ended up being a win. And I would like to say very clearly to those who are concerned about all these people coming to Denver and that that's going to make the city worse, I believe it's going to make our city better. The people coming here, the diversity of the people coming here is fantastic. And we need places for them to live and we need places for them to live where they don't need a car to access everything, which is the one thing Curtis Park Neighbors Board decided not to take a position on this amendment, on this amendment. And the reason was because it didn't it neither of the bills or the amendment fundamentally address what we believe is essential as you move forward to address, and that is that we need to have diverse, mixed use communities. In order for our city to be sustainable, people need to be able to access services by walking and biking and transit. That means that we need to have mixed use districts. What the amendment before you what that does not do is make any requirement that there be any kind of mixed use in our mixed use zones. So that's that's a big miss in our opinion. And so we did not decide to support or oppose it because we think it just missed the boat. So as you move forward, we hope that that will be something that city council can work on, that we make sure that we preserve our mixed use districts so that people can walk to services and that within those districts we have affordable housing. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Hayden. All right. This concludes our speakers and our time for questions by members of council. Councilman Castro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Anybody from CPD that would like to. To talk? I have a few questions. Let's see here. So the the project that brought this to everybody's attention up on Humboldt Street, that is going to be about 104 units on two lots. Correct. Something of that nature.
Speaker 11: It sounds sounds right. Don't have the exact unit count.
Speaker 7: Okay. So and they had zero parking requirements because they're under the old. Ordinance, correct?
Speaker 11: Yes. They've been approved.
Speaker 7: And is that affordable housing?
Speaker 11: I don't believe it's needed as affordable housing, but they are small units. They're all.
Speaker 7: But they're not. It's not an affordable housing project by any definition. The city has. There's no tax credits. It's not being sold at less than market value.
Speaker 11: Not that I'm aware.
Speaker 7: Of, no. Okay. So I'm wondering, do we have evidence that shows that if we don't build parking, that developers are going to become kind hearted and sell their units at less than market rate? Or is this a supposition?
Speaker 11: I think the supposition is that surface parking on us, you know, a 60 to 50 lot takes up a lot of space, one in costs, you know, as a significant cost. And so when you factor those things together, you know, it trickles down to the affordability issue. But I can't I can't say I have specific statistical evidence that.
Speaker 7: I agree with that. The. The original bill was written in 2006. There is no way that bill could have envisioned 54 units on a lot. Right. I mean, is there any part of you that thinks that they planners were thinking about that back then?
Speaker 11: I think it's evolved in the last ten years and there's a lot of unintended consequences.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 7: So as that being a baseline wouldn't make a lot of sense for the reality that we exist in today. I don't think. So I hear a lot of concern from CPD about how this affects affordability. So when this council. Passed the zoning for I think it's about 100 acres of Arapahoe Square. Without any affordable component in downtown. As as fine a transit location as you could find with CPD concerned about affordable housing then.
Speaker 11: I can't speak to that. Sorry. And I also would like to stand up straight and.
Speaker 7: Um, I may have one more. So and this bill, as I understand it, makes no requirement on any developer to provide. Car share. Transit passes or anything of that nature. Correct.
Speaker 11: Those incentives are already built into the code for for parking reductions you can get. So so they're already there. But that's not a mandatory thing with this bill as it's not mandatory now.
Speaker 7: And my understanding is that Denver's single occupant. Vehicle ride share has gone up the past two years. Am I remembering that correctly?
Speaker 2: Not sure.
Speaker 11: I see.
Speaker 7: Harris nodding. Yes.
Speaker 11: Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 7: Those are my questions. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cashman. Councilman Cashman. And I just wanted to jump in on the wrap Hull Square piece. And, Sara, I'm a look at you, but we have no parking requirements in the proposed square, new zoning, because that issue came up.
Speaker 7: I was talking about parking requirements and housing.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to give further context. And in our zoning to date, we don't have a mechanism for affordable housing, but it's coming up at 30th and Blake. So stay tuned. I like your.
Speaker 7: Questioning. It's a large part of this discussion, so I wanted to do drive it.
Speaker 2: That's good.
Speaker 3: I see it. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Jeff, that can be. And sorry I can't find the presentation that you had in our system. I'm sorry if I. If I misspeak, you can bring up the slide. I don't know if it's still in there or not, but I just want to. So. So CPD supported Councilman Brooks Bill before my amendments were adopted, correct? Yes. But is now opposing it because of my amendments? Correct.
Speaker 11: Yeah. I mean, that's essentially it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So on the slide and since it's up here, we can bring it up. The justification for opposing, at least on one of the conditions was that it was not consistent with adopted plans because it increased the level of parking. Correct. Now conveniently, the slides after that showed one example that would have still been zero with Brooks Bill and would have been eight with my amendments. But add another story to that building. Add two more stories to that building. And Brooks number is not zero anymore. So there are circumstances under Brooks Bill that would have added parking, correct?
Speaker 11: That's fair. Yeah. Yeah. So I that's it's it's the tipping point and sort of that threshold, which is not, you know, you can't get at a specific number. This isn't super scientific, but but it did reach a critical sort of tipping point from our perspective.
Speaker 2: Okay. So talk to me about that tipping point, because I don't see where you have outlined in a plan that it says adding parking is okay up to a tipping point. I see that it says adding parking is not consistent. They both added parking. That's a little bit more parking. But that seems to me to be a very subjective decision that staff has made on what that tipping point is.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I think it's the tipping point and part, which is a you know, it's based on there's any number of scenarios you could look at for how many parking spaces would be required depending on number of unit square footage. So it's that sort of threshold that we looked at one but then also the, you know, the planning board process and recommendation and the steering committee process and recommendation that represented a compromise which wasn't, you know, it was added parking to what we were sort of working with our baseline now. But, but at least from our perspective and others, feel free to jump up. It was all of those things combined in terms of the process leading to a compromise and our analysis of of, you know, how many additional parking spaces would be required if you take off a story.
Speaker 2: And we're not digging into all that right now. I just I took particular issue, I guess, with the slide that said that you were opposed because my amendments added parking and I just wanted to clarify that I hadn't missed something. Councilman Brooks proposal also added parking, but a subjective decision was made on staff's point that cannot be directly linked to any adopted plan that tells us what that tipping point is, or that even makes mention of a tipping point.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I don't think we have any plans that I would get into that level of detail at all. So no, we don't.
Speaker 2: So again, I guess on this not getting to planning, we're not getting anything else if there is no adopted plan. That says that or defines a tipping point. But South has made a decision. To oppose based on a tipping point. But then claiming that it is because of adopted plans seems to me like a little bit of a stretch.
Speaker 11: There's also the VPN component as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we'll get to that one. I'm just talking about opposing due to my amendments adding parking. When Councilman Brooksville also added parking and that was under the slide specifically saying that it is inconsistent with city wide plans, which means that somehow Councilman Brooks proposal was consistent with those same lines.
Speaker 8: Sure. So and I do think the zipline component is important that Jeff was going to talk about since you were talking about this particular topic. The only point I wanted to add, I think everything Jeff said was very on point. I guess two things. One is just to clarify, you know, is the the process to even look at amending this exemption to begin with was initiated by Council on the moratorium. And CPD has been trying to provide a technical lens throughout the process. And when it comes to and analyzing where the current amendment is, I think the tipping point that we're talking about is I think we'd agree with you. I wouldn't necessarily call it subjective. I think we're trying to make it as objective as we could based on actually looking at parcels and what you can build on them. But where the tipping point really comes in and the plan analysis is also about preserving the pattern of small lots. And our concern is that the tipping point that's being reached will encourage a lot assembly and go against our adopted planning policies of preserving that pattern and a kind of cherished attribute of the community. And I think we we definitely agree with you that there's not a bright line or a clear objective. If there was, we probably wouldn't have had to do this process because everybody would have been able to say, Oh, if we just apply this formula or follow the science, then we know the right balance. To make sure these lots can still be developed is x number of stories get exempted and you know, X number don't we don't have something that clear but our analysis was trying to get at when do you reach that tipping point where we're afraid that the lots will not be able to have enough flexibility to redevelop and therefore we lose the pattern of those small lots?
Speaker 2: I guess still confusing because that analysis never said once you reach this number, so it should be added parking. But at this number there are instances even under bricks proposal with the certain number of stories that would have exceeded that. But you guys weren't opposed to that. So anyway, I think we've hashed that one out. Getting to the zipline and maybe if Tina can come answer a few questions about that and then Jeff, if you want to jump in back to that. But so are there is there anywhere else in the code where your staff is required to review something that calls for less parking than would just be allowed?
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So there are other places where staff is making a decision on how deep the discount or the reduction in parking should be beyond. City Council says yes to this and no to that, or our rules say yes to this notion there somewhere else where there someone is, there.
Speaker 6: Is an existing provision that's been in the code. Since before 2010, it came into play in the nineties. I think that requires essentially a Z pin process. If a combination of asked for reductions exceeds 50% of the required to carry over, if I had to redo it today, I'd.
Speaker 8: Say.
Speaker 6: For the state.
Speaker 2: On the books right now, somebody could walk in tomorrow with the proposal asking for a reduction in or below 50% per those rules. Nothing to do with my lights and your staff. We you know.
Speaker 8: It's not an all or nothing game.
Speaker 6: I mean, here you don't get anything until you go through the Z process. And then somehow we're supposed to come up with the number. It's it's if you all or nothing, you either get the exemption or you don't.
Speaker 2: But if you want less than 50%. But if I get less than 50%.
Speaker 6: Gotten 50%.
Speaker 8: Off, reduce through.
Speaker 6: The code, and it's a lot easier to understand the underlying intent that this had to be something pretty extraordinary to get more than 50%. We don't have that kind of direction here. It's do you get the exemption or do you not? And somehow this EPM process is going to tell us that we don't think so. We could make that decision upfront if you would just make them subject to the exemption or not.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Those are my questions for now. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Let's see. We had Councilman Lopez pop out. Councilman Flynn was first. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. And actually, I want to thank Councilman Clark, because he asked almost all of the questions that I had about the inconsistency of recommending one, but not recommending the other when they both were apparently inconsistent. But one other thing, maybe, Athena, to expand on the the rec the recommendation that we deny this also because it provides for zip in, because it creates a false expectation for public input or whatever it was, the slide said. Can you talk about that a little more about why letting the public know what's going on in their neighborhood is, well, something that's going to create a problem?
Speaker 6: Sure. There's no problem in letting people know. And we always encourage developers to do their their part to let the neighborhood know what's coming and be a good neighbor. Whether you do it or not, there's no code requirement for it. The zip bin. It's not just that. It's asking for public input. It's a lot of steps, a lot of processing, a lot of resources to put out there, an opportunity to make comments to the city. And we're supposed to take those comments and somehow use them together with the criteria in the code and come up with that decision. We don't use the zip pin process to let people know about a project that something else. So we're using a zip pin. From what I can tell, to give notice that this project is happening. But the zip code is supposed to be more than that. So it's a bit of a misuse, I think, of a process without a lot of value added back.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 9: And I had a question for Karen, but maybe Tina, you can answer it since Karen's all the way in the back. But if we vote no, if we follow your recommendation of vote no, then effectively we go back to total parking exemption. Correct? Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Cindy. I don't know if you can. Come to the front. I. I just. I have a question. This may be planning in public works, and I just wanted to ask the status. So we talk about mass transit, modern day transit system, moving people. I know that we had. Discussions. And there's just a lot of different ways and a lot of different plans that are out there that we're working on a new No. One intimately. There's just so much that goes by. I kind of. Forget where things are right now. And I was wondering if you can give us an update on the bus, rapid transit, the BRT plans today. Kind of an update on where that is on Colfax and if and if. And I don't want to just I'm not just trying to put you on the spot. I'm just trying to get a little bit more information about where we're at there. And I don't know if CPD has been working with you to.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm by no means the expert. Hi, everyone. Cindy, Pat.
Speaker 2: Just generally just generally.
Speaker 6: Speaking, manager parking and mobility services in public works. And that is it's not one of my projects, but in general, the conversation about.
Speaker 8: BRT Uncle VACS has been in progress for quite some.
Speaker 6: Time right now. The project is funded.
Speaker 8: For design, I believe, and is moving through that process, looking at environmental impacts and those types of things. Also looking at configurations and how the, the the transit service will most efficiently operate on Colfax. There's, as you.
Speaker 6: Know, a go bond process happening right now talking about funding of different transit opportunities. There's a number of different transit enhancement options on that list and that that list will continue to be reviewed as it moves.
Speaker 8: Through the go bond process all.
Speaker 6: The way until you all refer that list to the ballot in July, I believe so. Does that help?
Speaker 2: It does, aside from I know that we have, you know, some funding on Colfax on the bond. Should it, you know, move on to voters and be absorbed. So I definitely understand that piece in term and I really appreciate the update. But have we added any additional length because right now it goes from Yosemite? No or no? I'm sorry. It goes all the way from two to to 25 or something like that. And it stops at federal.
Speaker 6: The Denver portion.
Speaker 2: The Denver border. But it goes all the way to I mean it basically goes.
Speaker 6: To 20 to extend is certainly there but it's related to the the funding and our partnerships with other jurisdictions.
Speaker 2: Cindy, we haven't added any funding to go further west right to this date.
Speaker 6: I haven't that I don't.
Speaker 8: I don't believe so.
Speaker 2: Okay. I just want to know if we made any progress, because this is something I brought up a year ago, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. You're just the messengers. I don't want anybody to think that I'm trying to give her hell. I just the idea. I just want to know if we made any progress since our last discussion. And I know that there's other folks that it's their baby that they're working on. So now I appreciate the the the answer that you have for me. Cindy Yeah, Mr. President, I just wanted to ask where we were, if there was any new plans or anything else because I.
Speaker 3: We can.
Speaker 2: Get you instantly been trying to ask for it to continue down to the other side of the city.
Speaker 3: We can we can have ask Gaby in the mayor's office to get you some information through public works and CPD on that, folks who are working on that. Okay. Thanks, counselor. Olympic Council Lopez and Cindy, who works in parking. Oh, let's get Councilman Espinosa. I actually didn't have any questions until all the questioning started.
Speaker 8: So question.
Speaker 3: For staff. Did staff steer the task force away from or diminish the request to add to add xp-pen did diminish a request by members of the task force to add zip in language because of policy.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 11: You know, that was Councilman Brooks's committee. We weren't in a position to do anything steering. Were there more from technical.
Speaker 3: So. So I can I can answer that. I think the conversation did come up and in all honesty, I think staff did push back and said this would create some issues for A, B and C reason. But the committee did have that conversation. Okay. When engaging the public for input and having community input on zoning challenge changes, the CPD policy framed the discussion. If so, God help us on anything. On what makes the Blueprint Council recommendations or what gets me followed through on by the agency? Is this a question or is this a comment? Yeah, we have policy and I have seen this happen before, which is there might be a good suggestion, but it's not consistent with policy, not the law. The ordinance, my new policy. So our our staff is reviewing this task force recommendation and what gets printed and shared with the public. Same with the you know, larger issues is policy driving what is and isn't basically put out there for public consumption and consideration.
Speaker 11: Well, the only policy we have to stick to the Tex amendment criteria and in the code and and that does point to citywide policy. So that's the only policy we're really looking at. When we were making our recommendation.
Speaker 3: We're talking about change, changes to adopted ordinance. And when we when we open a task force out to to both developers and the community and we get this this thing, and we try to achieve consensus, the idea is, is that we open it up completely. And if that means depend, what, like it or not, we should be considering that, shouldn't we?
Speaker 11: I think that all options are on the table.
Speaker 3: Okay. So, you know, we're talking about 11 small parking exempt projects in eight months. The public expectation is that the zoning administrator is comfortable enough customer and competent enough to make a decision regarding the impact of development on existing context. Council Knowing the skills of our staff. Councilman the people up to the task and the 11 projects were prior to. This process even starting. So please keep it to two questions. You got plenty of time and comments. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask Joel Noble to come up. I have some questions.
Speaker 2: But he should. You know.
Speaker 6: Thank you, John. As you as you know, I have a lot of concerns about this. These bills, not the least of which is concerns about developmental on Colfax and how much we're trying to support new neighborhoods serving development, but also in federal and other places are Main Street places. Can you address what you think this amendment might mean for the sort of the small lot, the concepts that we're trying to promote? Or I guess it was more that we heard it was that for small, smaller patterns.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me up. I wasn't planning to speak tonight. I'm happy to speak to you on my own behalf, my own opinions. I do serve on the Denver.
Speaker 11: Planning Board, but.
Speaker 3: Based on the Denver Planning Board bylaws, I can't speak on their behalf. So.
Speaker 6: Right. But I'd welcome your opinion.
Speaker 3: Okay. I try to listen pretty carefully to public sentiment. What are people interested in? What are they interested in preserving? What are they interested in defending against? And in the zoning code update process that I followed very closely with Councilwoman Madison. I heard a lot of people in the public concerned about preserving the pattern of small lots of small buildings, whether they're new buildings or old buildings. That character along the street and this parking exemption as a tool prototyped on Colfax to preserve that by not requiring more parking than can actually be fit on the sites was viewed as pretty successful just a few years in. And the zoning code the zoning code update process extended it. And when we look today about frustrations that we hear in the public, one of the frustrations we hear is we're losing the character. People say things are ugly and new development is too big. It's out of context. It's changing the character. So it's been of particular surprise to me throughout this process that there hasn't been more discussion either in the public or, frankly, at council about preserving that small character. Instead, we have a proposal here that while talking about parking and whether we believe people will have a car or not. And talking about supply and demand, fundamental supply and demand issues. If you produce more housing, then there's more supply and the price should come down for a given amount of demand. Nobody's really talking about the preserving the small lot character. I brought with me CPD produced an analysis on a sample project, the same sort of sample project they showed earlier of the amount of parking spaces that would be required for a sample project under various scenarios, how much is exempt, etc.. And in nearly all the cases in the scheme, zoning, which is the Emacs, is the most common of any of the zoning that any of the small lots have. Far more parking is required that can be fit on the site. 16 spaces, eight spaces, 2448 depending on the mix here. So it's obvious that if something can't fit, it won't be done. If if you can't fit 24 spaces on one of these very small lots, you're not going to you're going to do one of three other things. You're going to let it go. And we don't get revitalization. Things stay dormant. And that's a problem we have on Colfax quite a bit. And throughout the city, you're going to tear down every other building, right? So redevelop this building. Redevelop this site. Tear down the one next to it. To park it. Because I've met my parking requirements. And I got to tell you, when that happens, the public isn't happy because they're like, what happened to the character of the street? We have these parking lots, every other one, or you're going to assemble several lots together and do a much bigger building. That means you have enough space to provide all the parking. And then the public is going to say, what happened to the character of our small lot pattern. So I really regret the way this conversation is going because I was part of the conversation leading up to 2010, and I know that people who think about design and regret the changes they see happening in the city are going to regret the inevitable either lack of preserving the small lot character or stagnation or the missing teeth . The fact that we're going to get if this passes.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I was going to use that missing teeth analogy, too, because I hear it from developers. And when you have the missing teeth along a street, it discourages any new kinds of concepts going on. I appreciate and thank you very much, Joe. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Espinosa. You have a question? Yes. Jones, come back up. Since. Since Mary Beth put you on the spot and might as well ask you the question related to what was already discussed. If the if the recommendation of the task force and I mean, are you from. Let me first ask are you familiar with were you here for the entire staff presentation today? Yes. And then are you comfortable and familiar with the proposed text amendment that's on the table today? I'm familiar with it. Are you asking if I'm comfortable with it? No, I'm familiar with the actual language. Yes, yes, yes. So if that language were the recommendation of the task force and presented to the planning board, given the criteria of planning board. Is there any reason why Planning Board would not have recommended approval? Again. I can't speak to Planning Board, but I'm happy to talk about the topic of the criteria because a couple of months ago, when the moratorium was going to be extended, a comment that you made about the criteria of who caught my attention, you said that the criteria that the staff report was reviewing and the planning board reviewed is different than the criteria the council reviews, which actually is not correct according to the zoning code, the criteria is exactly the same. It wouldn't make any sense for planning, board or staff to to weigh in on criteria different than the criteria that you're analyzing. So the key criteria in a lot of these things is consistency with adopted plans. And if you read the staff report and you read the the letters that were sent in from the people who did speak to that, including Ken Triple A, professor of Urban Planning. It goes point by point through all the things in Blueprint Denver that argue for the kinds of diversity you can have when you lower the parking requirements. And I couldn't find anything in my analysis for the planning board work that argued for increasing parking requirements. And so today, you've got staff saying to you that they don't find this proposal consistent with adopted plans. A planning board we had to look at, okay, how inconsistent is it versus other goals? And the recommendation of the task force for me and I can only speak for myself that very, very popular three storey zoning, very neighborhood compatible, keeping the small lot character at the three story zoning was the tipping point to Councilman Clark's comment. The fact that Councilman Brooks proposal, when it's near transit one, is that the places that can best support people's ability to live a car for your lifestyle if they choose to. And if a developer chooses to provide that product, that was a good tipping point to say we're providing a diversity of options, meeting all the goals and blueprint Denver well enough because you can still build that very popular three story product on the three story zoning, which I think is the most common zoning where these small lots are found. When you go beyond that and to your point, if if today's proposal had come to planning board, I can't speak for anybody else, but I would be very challenged to find it consistent with Blueprint. Denver That's interesting because most of my point when I spoke at the planning board were on the the argument about density and units per acre that are very much part of Blueprint Denver But nowhere in our code which this does not go to to addressing which has dramatic impact because 54 unit project on a seventh of an acre is 240 units per acre, which is not at all representative of single family duplex zone districts that are areas of stability where the councilman. So to that, I asked you to sort of consider the language it by itself and all you did was a comparison which that in fact occurred at planning board as well. Because Councilman Clark's proposal was mentioned in the the comments from Planning Board were very clear to sort of put, put put down that suggestion. But I'm asking is if if this if this this still represents a reduction in parking requirements over any base zone district. So is the criteria that is met. I mean, that needs to be met in order to get planning board approval is the criteria met by this ordinance or we now. So if we approve it, are we in violation of our own criteria? I probably can't do any better than planning board itself did. And because Planning Board recommended of the original approval of the original proposal approval with a condition that the parking requirements not be further increased because in my opinion it would reach this point where achieving the goals and blueprint Denver of having a variety of housing options and having a variety of being able to live with or without a car would be compromised. Staff's staff's report today, I think, emphasizes that. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, gentlemen. As soon as was Councilwoman says.
Speaker 6: Yes, sir. Mr. Hickman, I have a question for you. If you could come to the podium. Mr. Hill. Yes. I notice that you've been attending our geo open transportation and mobility meetings and very grateful for that. And in all of the volunteering you have done on this issue.
Speaker 0: Well, I attended one this last.
Speaker 6: The last one, which was a very important one that's.
Speaker 0: Stimulating.
Speaker 6: That's for sure. And we had many we had several speeches by the can travel that was mentioned. And Jill Lo can talk about our need to consider how much we subsidize cars and particularly single occupancy vehicles and how the experts and the people who are studying this says we have to think very, very difficult situations about are not subsidizing car use as much as we do. And as I was watching you, I was wondering, I wonder what Mr. Hickman is thinking about this in terms of the small parking exemption issue that I know you've been promoting.
Speaker 0: Wow. Do you really expect me to answer that?
Speaker 6: Yes, I.
Speaker 0: Do. By midnight?
Speaker 6: Well, maybe in about 2 minutes. 3 minutes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The issue, of course. Is that anything we do? Needs to be weighed against the resources that we take to do it. Okay. At the root of this issue, I think, is the fact that people still own cars. We hope, and I'm one of them. We hope that people will own fewer and fewer cars in the future. I think I said that earlier tonight. But meanwhile, the reality is people have cars. We have to store them somewhere. And our streets have only so much capacity for anything. And I think one of the last things. That we need to do is to use that right of way. That was discussed a lot in that meeting. For more parking that right away is there for other uses that would be much more beneficial and advantageous to the citizens of Denver? Does that does it help?
Speaker 6: That's a really good and I appreciate that response and I thank you for attending. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Do you have time for a small joke?
Speaker 6: No, I think that's only in common.
Speaker 3: I will. Yeah, I'll answer for no, she doesn't right now. Councilman Lopez. This is mine. It's my. Got it. Did you have did you have some.
Speaker 2: You know what, my. I do, but for the next four comments. Okay, great. I'll make my comments.
Speaker 3: Great. Couple questions. I think we. First of all, let me just ask. Just raise your hand if you are a developer in the room. Okay. Great. And the deadline, folks, that they leave already. Okay. That's unfortunate. Okay. We'll go on to common sense. Let me. Where's my. Oh, there's my gavel. Okay. The public hearing for 161 is now closed. We're going to comments.
Speaker 6: Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. This has been a long haul, and we've been beating this one up a lot. You know, I'll start with once again thanking you, Mr. President, for taking this on and for also being open to disagreement and conversation and evolution and and and helping me along the way with how I worked things that that you didn't agree with. And so I think that is an important part of our process up here. Councilman Hurd did not hear what he always says. We can disagree, but that doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. And I think I take that with me and I just really appreciate how you have led us on this issue . I also want to thank staff sitting here in the front row tonight. I know it's not easy dealing with us up here, and we're a cagey bunch of crazies. You quote me on that one, and I just want to say thank you again. We get heated, we get into this, but at the end of the day, you guys have the hardest job in the world trying to balance all of this and all of us who have very different feelings. You know, a couple of things that I just want to say that I think that, you know, very quickly to go through the stuff that I touched on in questions, I was asking questions about if you want to develop on a small lot with no exemption, there's no zip in. You can go to vote if you want the exemption, there's zip and that gets you down to a very low percentage of parking. If you're on a bigger lot and you want to develop without going below 50%, there's no zip in the joint, less than 50%, there's a zip. And it sounds to me like a very similar process. I am eager and I wish that, you know, I hope that we can we can move forward. And if there are ways for us to define it more down the line, that makes it easier for staff. I would be happy to take that on, too. I wish that, you know, somebody from from the zoning administrator's office might have reached out and said, what would that have looked like? Rather than just you're not doing it? And so it's hard. So for me, that to me, Xp-Pen is so important to this. And to me it doesn't seem that out of line with what we already do. It's new and different territory here, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. You know, I also, again, want to point out what I pointed out a lot of times, that my bill isn't the only bill that adds parking. The bill that was put on the table added parking. And I do think that that tipping point is is tough. And so I guess I'm not saying that I think CBD necessarily should have supported the bill as amended, but I'm just not also sure that you should have supported Brooksville based on the same some of the same criteria that you looked at on mine. What's really important to me at the end of the day is that support or not support. We've had a really robust conversation and we moved something forward that can be good for the for our communities. I also, you know, understand that this bill, as amended, does make CPD and public works and everybody a little bit nervous. And honestly, I think that's a really good thing right now because since we doubled down with our second vote on these amendments a couple of weeks ago, I have had more awesome conversations with staff about how we are going to move very quickly on TDM and and you know all the things at the very beginning that were said about parking management and TDM and all these great things. And so I think that this puts us in a place where it's not perfect, but it does put us heading in the right direction. I wish that tonight we were talking about a bill that was all about TDM and multi-modal improvements and parking management. I wish we would have been talking about that since the beginning of this process. Not getting really excited about at the end when we're getting nervous about what's going to happen. I wish that we were talking about incentivizing mixed use as part of this. I wish that we were talking about context, sensitivity and what works in downtown might not work in the highest point in Denver and District two. And to be very clear, I don't love this bill. This bill is not my baby that I am so excited about. I think we have a lot of work to do. I don't think this is a perfect solution, but I do think it's a good start and I think it's a good start that brings the neighborhoods, the ones who are experiencing this firsthand and not theoretically and not from a book, but in real time, in real life in the world that we live in today, not the future condition. It brings them to the table to say, this isn't perfect, this isn't what we wanted, but it's a compromise we're willing to start with. And I think some I can't remember who said it. I'd give you total credit, but somebody said, Well, you know, if everybody in the room, there's nobody in the room who is really like, yeah, this bill, right? That means we've probably landed at a pretty good place for compromise. I feel like this is a good start. It's a good compromise. It's much better than a full exemption, which is where we are going tonight with the no vote, no vote go takes us back to full exemption. And so I sincerely hope that this is the start of the conversation, not the end of it. And I would ask my colleagues to please vote yes on this good compromise so that we can start the process of moving forward. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Pro tem clerk. And I'm just going to go down the line because we we got them lining up, you all. And I don't know how you came in. So. Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. President. I second Councilman Clark's comments for working with this body and allowing us the space to voice and address the concerns of our constituency, especially those impacted as yours, mine. And Councilman Clark's is speaks well of your leadership. And thank you. We are not listening. So I can tell you all that this that I don't have consensus support of even this amended version for my R.A. It still doesn't get there. As many of your comments mentioned, no consideration for true mixed use development, transit alternatives or affordability, but it's a good compromise and hammered out amendment. And so with that I'll be supporting it. But I wanted to speak to a few things here. A speaker mentioned how they're already built. Existing unit went from 1300 dollars a month to 1700 dollars a month after she moved out. In one day. It was it was re rented. The cost of that building did not go up because of the parking requirement on that project. It was an existing building. The rental market isn't being driven by parking. Ironically, the new zoning code has always had parking reductions for projects with affordable units, given the expressed difficulty demonstrated by staff to capture some of the required parking. Maybe, just maybe, savvy developers seeking square footage for development would look to those affordability reductions or reductions for alternative transit to resolve design challenges as they meet on these small lots to council and clerk's observations. In the Q&A, staff claimed that the amended amendment is inconsistent with Blueprint Denver requirements related to parking. Mind you, at the time that that was adopted 15 years ago, all areas were subject to Chapter 59 zoning regulations. At the time of Blueprint, Denver Tennyson Street was zoned before that, zoning would require multifamily development to provide one space per dwelling unit. The impact is easy enough that impact is easy enough to figure out. However. If one wanted to build a structure for a brewpub, an eating place or retail, the parking requirement would be required at a rate of one per 200 gross square feet. That is. Is. It's the fourth category. Sir, if anyone is interested in chapter 59. The entire first floor in and of in our current amendment, the entire first floor is exempt over 6250 lot which remains exempt with this amendment. And we're one of those commercial uses on in that old chapter 59 zoning code that's 31 required spaces. That's now exempt. We had mapped. Had we mapped to mass or zoning without small lot exemption, we would have been consistent with Blueprint Denver then. That is a massive reduction and we are now period. If the recommendation of President Brooks's task force were the language we have today. The criteria of the planning board would in fact be met. And would be recommended for approval. There is nothing in this amendment that doesn't meet that criteria despite what is being said on the city staff. So I'm disappointed that the director of CPD has wasted so many precious staff resources defending the President's text amendment on a fraction of 1% of the developable land in this city. Those are resources that could have been working on helping fund transit through development of transit demand management policies or land value capture. We could and should be 60 days into that future. Mind you, I now know that we are in fact, working on that. Thank God. But I've been talking about that specifically to the managing director of CPD almost since the day I got here. So I wish we were voting today on TDM Inland Value Capture because those are the tools we were presented long ago. The case was made that when we re zoned in 2010, we did not have restrictive enough basis zoning. So some of these assets that we're trying to make are going to be harder and heavier lifting because we have already massively reduced the parking requirements in this city. That is the model that other communities are looking at. Our base zoning without exemptions. In fact, to the point about cities not making parking, increasing parking requires Boston, South Boston just three months ago increase their parking requirements from 0.9 units per I mean point nine spaces per unit to 1.5. Why? Neighborhood preservation. So there is a give and take here. I'm totally on board with getting zero mean 100% parking exemption, but we need have to have the tools and the keep and skills adopted by this city and put in place so that we can get there in a more managed, thoughtful way. And so with that, I will be supporting this amendment because I think it's as good as we can do right now. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, let me just. Let me thank you for all of your work. Also. You are very passionate. You stayed on top of this. You. Convene a lot of people. And I, you know, in the light, the last vote that we had on this bill. You know, I. I saw the disappointment that you had. I don't want you to think for 1/2 that this is a critique of your work or your work ethic or your leadership. I think, you know, I say this and I know my my colleagues and the folks around us know how hard you work. And I wanted to commend you for that on the floor. This is a tricky issue. And why. You know, I kind of felt conflicted going back and forth. And what it did is. For me, it's allowed me to take a look at how this would apply to them. To my area a little bit. A little bit more. And I cannot. So I did. I was able to engage with more of my constituents, with folks across the city and kind of compare the two. And I know this song and I feel like the Rolling Stones I need to sing sing the same song with the same kind of excitement as it did the first time. Right. So it's a little tricky, but it comes across it actually is pretty, pretty good. I'm looking at Paul Cashman and I know he's looking at me real skeptical. I think I want to poke fun at the Stones. I'm not. So that's how it comes across. I'm glad you're laughing. So. So is laughing at my joke. So I say this because. I the the woman that got up, I don't know if she's still here, but she got up and said, you know, these are family grew that child and they're looking for a place that was like 1700 a month. I can't help but think. Come West. There are some places in Barnum and we'll park in our neck of the woods on the west side that are that are about that budget. And you're going to get a good a good unit. I mean, you'll get three bedrooms with your own driveway and your own yard for about that much. It's still expensive, still absolutely expensive to live in Denver, no matter where it is. Everybody's getting squeezed out. I. I paid a lot of attention to her because I'm wondering why she hasn't come west. And when I ask people, well, why out here? Well, it's not as connected. And it's the same answer I've gotten. It's not as connected. And then I go back into my neighborhoods and I don't need to go back. I mean, I'm from the neighborhood, I. Eat, sleep. And I mean, JJ is man, I was a pitcher. He was a third baseman. We were on the same team, literally in Little and Little League. Not much has changed on our side of the river. And even with plans. And I wanted to make sure that that that. Cindy didn't feel attacked when I said this. I just was honestly looking for an update. Cindy's an amazing visionary over our public works. You are. But it goes back to American if we were. So there's two ways this is framed. One is affordability, the other is mass transit. This whole argument for or against? And this is why I'm going to tell you why I'm supporting this bill. I supported this amendment because. If we were so engrained in wanting to make this happen in multi-modal city happen. The BRT would be without question. On the West Side. It's not even funded going past federal boulevard. We had to fight for it just to come across the river. I was told a million times you couldn't put it on Colfax or the Hill. It's heavy, you know. Well, they usually there's trains in San Francisco, so. If a kitchen can exist in San Francisco over on a on a steep grate again in Denver. And then. Just the planning and we are looking at. West Side kind of the neighborhood plans and bringing him up to speed. And these are plans that were done that were created all about the car and it was all about just driving everywhere. These are plans from the eighties and nineties. They're not going to get touched until 2019 according to the phasing that that they're working on in CPD. I won't even be a councilman. And we're all about it. We want to start now, but we just don't have the capacity to to do it. We don't have the staff to actually get it done. So that and then, you know, I came to this council a year ago with a simple amendment to the budget to ask for to for a block of sidewalk. On South Florida, on the west side, southwest Denver. $170,000. I mean, it's not it's not cheap, but it's also not going to break us. That request was denied. I couldn't get more than four votes for that. So where is this multimodal city? I've been hearing about. Not in the West Side. Now we've been pushing to give some folks in credit. We've been pushing. But the bike boulevard that we needed implemented. They said we're going to implement of Denver's first bike boulevard four years ago. We still don't have it. I'm seeing it all built out and striped all over this place down here. We're not getting it over there. So I don't buy this thing about well, we want to make it so that you can get anywhere. Well, apparently not in the West Side. That's what we're fighting for. And look, I'm not it's not a critique on our staff. It's not a critique on the people that make it work. It's the critique on our priorities as a city, in our budget, what we're not willing to fund. The other thing is affordability. I don't think this this isn't an issue about affordability, folks. Seattle. Portland. People that are kind of there with it. They still have an affordable housing crisis. You look at other cities with equivalent or higher parking requirements that are more affordable. Denver. Phenix. Albuquerque. Salt Lake City. Dallas. Columbus, Ohio. This exemption has been around for 6.5 years. You think that's made a dent in our affordable housing crisis? It hasn't. And also go take a look at some of these micro units. Column. Pretend your. Your. Your. I'm trying to be cool, like. Get in there and be like, hey, I want I want a unit and I don't want to share anything. I'm a millennial, whatever. Right? Well, I want to share everything. I'm millennial. I want a small unit. IKEA couch, whatever you call them. Asked what the month to month rent is 1300 dollars for 400 square feet. Are these really affordable? Are these families? And if that's what we're incentivizing. On these in these locations and. How is this going to increase affordable housing? And, you know, one of our to give to give is to bring something out and don't want to be to I don't belabor and I'm sorry, but I really need to make this point because last time I was conflicted. Somebody on our council said, Well, why don't we? Why don't we all walk or bike or transit for a whole week? To work. For Joel. That was you that said that for Joel and John's the guy that has taken all the heat saying the call in the parking council. I mean, he's the only one biking down here. All right, I'll tell you what I would, but I have a daughter to pick up after school and take to her after school program. I have a mother to go leave dinner for who lives outside of Denver. I got to do that every single day. I can't do it on a bicycle. I can't do it on the 16. And let's try. You know, this is fine and dandy when it's when it's warm outside. But what happens in the winter? So this is why I supported the amendment and this is why I support this moving forward as until we are there. I'm not there. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. And what a joy this meeting is. And if you want to get up and stretch your drinks and poison whatever it would take to make you feel better, please feel free. So you know what? I've said this before, so excuse me if you've heard this before, but when people ask me what is my biggest surprise since taking this job, I always tell them two things. I tell them that my biggest surprise is how competent city staff is. By and large, I mean, when I was just another citizen out there at home reading the paper and watching TV and thinking people are idiots. They don't know what they're doing. They don't care. And you see that once every how many years exposed because some poor parks worker was overtired and took a nap in his truck. And so everyone thinks everyone's sleeping through the day. And you get you get inside the process a little bit and you realize how competent and how hardworking these people are. And people ask me about my council colleagues and I tell them, you know, we're we're obviously 13 different people, and it ranges from fairly conservative to fairly liberal . But we're a very collegial group. I mean, we work together well. I think Councilman Brooks does a wonderful job as a whole as our leader this year in facilitating that collegial atmosphere. And the reason I bring this up is I don't think any of us have done our best work on this process. You know, I think as as we've gotten into it, the topic has revealed itself to be more complicated. And I think it deserved more time and more more time in the weeds to I don't know, you know, I believe that the staff is having fits over the idea of CPM. I believe they are. They're seeing some real problems with it. And I think with more time, maybe it would be a different kind of pain and it would have different types of of of processes. But I believe we can make it work. You know, and I think, you know, we're looking at these maps with the quarter mile, half mile areas around transit zones. I'm thinking, why are we getting off the transit corridor? Maybe we stay on the transit corridor. I'm concerned about Councilwoman Sussman and her concerns about Colfax. There are areas that I think we really need to pay attention to. But I for me, I'm just very clear what my constituents want. Want in or out of this process. You know, I think we've made some fairly mediocre sausage. You know, if I were ordering breakfast at Sam's three and this was the sausage, I'd probably either ask for bacon or some cottage cheese on the side. We need to continue working on this. And also, I mean, I need to just reiterate, I mean, where people are sitting here with, oh, my God, you're changing the world as we see it. It's 1% of the lots in the city. Okay. 1% of the lots in the city. That's not saying I'm satisfied with this. I think I've been clear. We need to keep working on this. No one's happy with this. This is not doing what anyone wants. And, you know, affordable housing. Please, please, please. You know, I can get an affordable meal at the Brown Palace at Ruth's Chris. At the fanciest restaurants in the city. If I want to go eat a potato and go home and call that a meal. That's not to me, a meal. And a thousand 1213, 1400 bucks for 400 square feet is not affordable housing, you know, I mean, it's it's just not my definition of affordable housing. So I will. I'll be supporting this sausage. You know, and Councilman Clark and I sat down with the director of CPD just because we wanted to exchange ideas and look for ways that we can figure out these remaining gaps. How do we get development on Colfax and protect the neighborhoods that I believe deserve being protected? I my my friend Espinosa, Councilwoman Espinosa said a few meetings ago that and I definitely empathize with this. There are people in these neighborhoods who have been building these great neighborhoods for decades. So let's give them a wee bit of slack because they don't want 104 units dumped on their block with no parking. I get I get I get the argument against. I'm concerned about the argument against. I always keep in mind when I'm assessing these issues and I get to the point where I believe what I believe. I always keep in mind I might be wrong. You know, I might be wrong. My vote might be the wrong vote. But this is the way I'm seeing it today. Thank you, staff, very much. I think you're all incredibly talented people. So we're at odds on this one. So be it. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Cash. Councilman Neal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I echo the thanks to Councilman Clark and Counsel Brooks and also to Councilor Cashman. He filled in while Counsel Brooks was out and carried the ball initially, and it was part of the all the discussion with the group. So thank you for all your leadership on that. I also want to thank all the residents, you know, Bob and David especially and Margie. I mean, the analysis y'all did were just unbelievable. Every time you come in my office, you bring out some new analytical report and data that you accumulated. And it was so thorough and professional. I just really appreciate you helping us.
Speaker 3: Understand all the issues.
Speaker 2: That were around your mind and what was important to you and and your neighborhoods. I really appreciate that. I got really excited when City Pan came up because I thought City was going to lay out a transportation plan for us. But, you know, but but I knew she she was going to do her best to answer Paul's questions. But we still don't have that plan, and we hopefully will have it soon and look forward to it. I was I was glad when Councilwoman Sussman called up Joel. Joe, such a smart guy. And, you know, the planning board and and his kids comments about character are right on target with Colfax. We've been talking about that quite a bit for the last year or so, but I think it's going to come down to a discussion about character and density. When we get to Colfax, it's all going to be about affordable housing and density and and what's going to happen to Colfax and Transit going down to the heart of Colfax. So it's going to be a very interesting discussion. I really wish that we had that transportation plan and I really wish we had Councilman Sessions. Transit agency that she's been talking about so fervently so. And she's right on target. The city has got to have a transit agency to help implement that plan and and take control of our transportation system. So and if we had that plan and that agency, I think today would be a totally different discussion. We wouldn't be talking so much about parking. I think we'd be talking about and developing and moving people around and possibly even getting people out of the cars. So so maybe that maybe that'll happen one of these days. But I think what the alternate animated approach is a balanced approach. And so I can't imagine it's going back to to the old ordinance and and being totally exempt. So I think in my my constituents believe that to you know, I do surveys on all the major issues with all my constituents and I get about 800 to 1000 residents giving me feedback. And this was the highest I've ever had on a survey so far in my two years. And 85% of my Rosa said no to the exemptions. And but if they had a choice between three and, you know, council clerk and councilman Brooks it was council was Clark was the amendment they preferred so so I'll vote yes tonight and I'll encourage my colleagues to do so. And and like everyone said, you know, we got to keep working on this. We were this was just the start of this whole thing. And we've got to get transit and transportation solved and implemented in our city to become a great city. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Now, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank not only my colleagues, Councilman Brooks and Councilman Clark, for their work on this. I want to thank city staff and folks from the neighborhoods on both sides that were. Passionate in bringing forth various points of views that helped us get to something that I think is an even better compromise. You know, over the years, as I have been involved in the land use process, city council clearly is is responsible for this. And it is not unusual to have a recommendation come out of the planning board that is not supported by city council. So, you know, and again, this is part of the deliberative process that we go through in listening to community and making sure that we're trying to find that that, you know, important balance between the very and various points of view. You know, I can remember back when the chamber took a large group of people to Vancouver. And everybody came back excited about wanting to see more density in the city of Denver. This was before 2003 when we had, you know, ten members of city council leave. That's when we started talking about density. And everybody kept saying, where we see density, we're going to see affordability. Well in our large development, that hasn't translated to affordability. So where you would think in large scale developments. Where we're we're, you know, seeing massive units being developed. We should see affordability, but that hasn't been the case. So to expect that in small unit developments, you know, doesn't mean that's going to translate either. The other thing I think is important as we talk about the need for transit management a TDM for the core of the city, you know, we've got a great one out at Stapleton that's doing great work. They've got businesses providing discounted passes for their workers. But guess what? RTD just did away with that discounted bus pass. So how do we make sure that there's equity in the kind of work that we're talking about so that people who are the poorest among us could afford to ride public transit there , the people who need it the most, and by and large end up paying more. Because when you look at, you know, the fact that, you know, government employees, the city discounts that pass for for for city employees. You know, there are other programs. But when it comes to folks who are at the bottom of the pay scale, they're the ones that get hit the hardest with the affordable housing, the highest transportation cost. So we got to find something that works for everybody and doesn't create this push out effect that says, you know, geez, your city, that we just can't accommodate you. So you got to go somewhere else that you can afford. And that's that's the wrong message. I think we as a city should be working to address. So I'm going to be supporting this amendment tonight. Again, I think the deliberations that have taken place have been an important part of the process. And I appreciate the work that everybody has done on all sides of this issue. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm afraid I'm not part of this Kumbaya group. I'm going to probably be the first one to speak against support of this bill. It's I I feel like Councilman Cashman does that. We are a very, very collegial group, and we do work well together. But we've had the leader of this bill say it's not a good bill, but I'm I'm going to back it anyway. We had Mr. Cashman say it's mediocre sausage, but I'm going to vote for it anyway. I just don't know if that's a sustainable way in which to vote to. Let's not let's make bills that we don't like, but let's vote for them anyway. I think that. Well, first of all, we're putting a lot into 6250 square feet. And it seems actually it's a small thing, but we have to maintain our principles and our vision and our ways for transforming our city. I think making decisions like this puts us on the wrong side of history. This bill moves us one step, a little step backward. We've had taken great strides. Couple of steps forward. But we have to keep. Pure to our ideas of what it's going to take. To really turn around this city and get and reduce the amount of single occupancy vehicles. And there is lots of research out there about how to do that. We want a walkable, bikeable, transit rich city. Neighbors are concerned about congestion in the top three issues in my district are traffic, traffic and traffic. The only way you can move forward on something like this is to make really hard decisions that are unpopular with some and popular with others. But we have to stop subsidizing car use. With low gas prices. Low gas tax. Roads that are built primarily for cars that have for generations had the right of way before all people, these £3,000 things. And the other thing is parking requirements. It's a huge subsidy for car users. Huge. We all feel like we deserve a free parking space. Our cars deserve a free parking space. Where did where did that come from? There is so much research out there how minimum rear parking requirements and the other subsidies are a major part of our problem with congestion. And to say it isn't so. I'm going to just be kind of harsh here. Sounds like science deniers. You can say, okay, this is what they're saying in the science, but I really don't want to do that. There. There's just no evidence otherwise and that we have to reduce our subsidy for cars and the way in which our our country is. And and I'm making all these, you know, grandiose statements on a little thing, you know, whether three stories get exemptions or two stories get exemptions. It's a really small thing. But when you've got a plan and you have a transformative vision and you have a goal, you can't let the little things slip by you. You can't do that if you're compromising your principles. The other principle that I believe in, too, is community input. Councilman Brooks ran a very comprehensive community process at looking at all the issues related to this, and they made a plan. I'm not sure. I wouldn't have supported the original. Parking exemption for small lots. For all of the reasons that CPD did and the planning board did. But at least we had a community process and I know those people who were on that project or one are feeling like they were unheard. Where did their recommendations go? Why were they unheated? Why? And then I've even heard one say, why participate if you're not heeded? I, I just wish that, you know, and I wanted to say our, our CPD leader took the time and our CPD people took the time to look at this because we asked them to we put a moratorium on this. And so they had to spend their time and resources on this because the council asked them to. And TDM is an important issue. I'm glad we're talking about it, but it's not just CPD, it's public works, it's housing, it's it's all of the agencies in our city. This particular 6200 feet, 60 to 50 feet has a lot to do with my Colfax issues and federal. It has a lot to do with affordable housing. It has a lot to do with the way we want our city to look. And it has a lot to do with equity in the ways we move around that. Pedestrians, bicycles and cars should have equal access to our right of way. They should have equal access. And that's an important value. It's probably not. As popular. But it is the science and I won't be voting for this change. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I hate it that I'm next because I am so wavering. This has been the best public comment. Everyone here has had a very persuasive argument. And I really appreciate you all being here and being here so late. I'm very tired and I'm sure you are too, because I have a much more comfortable seat and thank you CPD. I'm very dismayed because I feel like there's a lot of misunderstanding about the original parking exemption, which actually was about neighborhood preservation, and it was about small scale and historic buildings. And it does it dismays me that now it's it's if you're support the exemption that you're against neighborhoods because that's not what it is. Just as Councilwoman Sussman just said. I also I feel like it's turned into now a fight over who owns the street parking. And and that's not what it was ever intended to be. And I also think it's it's not right that it's somehow a developer against neighborhood, because that's not what it is either. It was it was intended to preserve small scale buildings and not tear them all down and build a giant monstrosity like we have on South University in his district. Anyway. That said, the both the exemption and both of the compromises, the Brooks compromise and the Clark compromise were well-intended, incredibly imperfect, have unintended consequences. And they don't necessarily solve the problems that they intended to solve. We need a much more pointed and neighborhood specific solution, as John Hayden, I think he already left and others suggested. Every part of our city is unique. There's only one part of my district that has small lots. The rest of my district has more parking than we could ever fill. In fact, if you want to park in my district and I take the light rail into town, you should do it in. The one neighborhood that is impacted, however, is in undergoing incredible change and densification right now. And they support Dolan's bill and have asked me to support it. Councilman Susman is right. Nobody is excited about it. Sue Glass Maker said it's mediocre at best. Keith Pryor said this particular bill is not addressing the issue. We need to look at better ways to preserve small lots and encourage affordable housing and mixed use. I've wavered if I'm going to support it or I'm not going to support it. I think it's going to pass. My I told you, my R.A. has asked me to support it. I. I don't think the exemption has been successful. It hasn't I don't think it's resulted in affordable housing. I think there's been unintended consequences, Sharon Nunnally said. We can still work on it, and that's that's the spirit I like the best is that whatever we had wasn't what we needed, but we need to all get together and find a better solution. So I'm still pondering this, but thank you.
Speaker 3: How could you be pondering after all this time? Okay.
Speaker 10: So.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Black, thank you for your great comments. Council it, Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Sorry, sir.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I think I'm most distressed to hear that Councilwoman Sussman is going to destroy the Flynn corollary that I developed back in the eighties and nineties over at the press table that the longer we debated and talked and commented is seemed, the more unanimous the vote would turn out to be. So another another one bites the dust. All 13 of us up here, those who are present and the three who are absent tonight, have free, reserved private parking in the most transit rich. Node in all of Colorado. And to my knowledge, only Councilman Clark and I frequently use alternative modes, councilman bicycles, although he has that power assist battery. That's really kind of cool. It's a cheat. It's a cheat. And he's a young guy. He's a young guy despite looking as old as he does. But and I take light rail, but I have to drive to Englewood because there's no reliable transit for me to get to Englewood Station to come in. And and as Councilman Lopez mentioned last week, I did email all of us and said, why don't we try to use alternative mode to come here in last week to see. Yeah. To get some appreciation for it. No one took me up on the offer and I regret to say that I couldn't do it any day either because of the demands of my schedule to be here and there at certain times. I wish that we could be nuanced enough and nimble enough so that we could address the very legitimate concerns that I share with Councilwoman Sussman and along Federal Boulevard to try to maintain the character and the small parcels. I wish that we were nimble enough to to be able to address those without also suffocating the bungalows of Platt Park in West Wash Park by straight jacket ing them with the exact same one size fits all jacket. It seems to me that sometimes we argue for strict uniformity of regulation because we like predictability and certainty when it suits our ultimate philosophical purpose. But then when it doesn't, we like to be context sensitive. I wish we had a context sensitive solution to this. I'm going to obviously vote yes for this, but I will work with every other member and with CPD to try to find a more flexible and nimble solution so that what works on Colfax but doesn't work in Platt Park can still. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. Councilman Cashman and Lopez. I'm going to go to Councilwoman Gilmore just to give since you guys already won. Okay.
Speaker 7: Lean forward to lean back.
Speaker 3: You got to lean back in that comfy chair there. Okay, Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Thank you, President Brooks. You know, listening very thoughtfully to all of the public comment and all of the the great conversation by my colleagues. The one thing that. Either. Bill really highlights is our enormous gaps in transit in the city. And it's unfortunate and an equitable I think to pit affordable housing against. A failing transit system. When we're also trying to maintain the character of our neighborhoods, because I think there's a much broader and bigger conversation that we need to be having. And as it's been said time and time again. It's not a perfect solution. But Councilman Clarke's amended bill is a compromise and what I hope is an interim solution. To this issue, but that we're going to have to come back and address it again and again and again. The one thing that we haven't necessarily talked about. In an intentional way is the equity question that this brings up, especially for my family who resides in the Monticello community. And I would love to take Councilman Flynn up on his, you know, challenge to take transit, to come to the city and county building. That's not a reality for me. I have children who are in school who need to be there at a certain time. They need to be picked up midday. And so I just hope through all of the conversation that we've had here tonight, that we can elevate the conversation to one that looks at transit and affordable housing and a team plan from an equity lens, so that we're making sure that we're not only addressing certain parts of the city, but that we are truly being inclusive and including Councilman Lopez's district and my district and all the people in in Denver. And that to have the privilege to utilize transit. You live in certain areas of the city, and unfortunately, that doesn't always cover all the communities of color in the city. And so I hope that we can work more to broaden the conversation where it needs to go so that my three kids can choose if they want to own a car or not, that it's not a necessity for them to own a car. And so that being said, I'm going to go ahead and support Council Bill 161. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, Council Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: And thank you, sir. I will keep this brief, but I had to answer a couple of things. Look, I take this job very seriously. I don't set out in the morning to make legislation that I'm not proud of. If it wasn't clear enough, I support what I consider a mediocre bill because I consider the alternative poisonous. To go back to go back to a place with no parking restrictions, I think makes no sense at all so that the inference that somehow people are satisfied with mediocre legislation, I couldn't let sit and to infer that we're somehow science deniers. When this entire council. Placed as its number one budget priority, increased mobility and transportation. And then on this one issue that affects 1% of the lots in the city. We disagree. Makes no sense to me. I mean, Brother Murray has already tweeted out my sausage comment. You know, it makes and it makes an easy headline. I had done the same thing when I was writing, so. No offense taken, John, but yeah, I mean. Well, what I said before about the fact I don't think we worked well together. You know, you have the legislative and the executive branches and there's separation of powers. But we need to partner better sometimes. And I'm seeing another situation evolve that I'm interested in. Where I'm seeing silos when they are sometimes don't serve us real well. So we need to work better at that. You know, I sit with the SAT, with Councilwoman Susman, with the mayor, urging him to form that Department of Mobility or Transportation or Transit, whatever whatever you want to want to talk about. So I think we have 13 people up here who are very clear on the need to improve transit, to improve mobility options, to provide affordable housing. And we're just differing on this one tiny part of that discussion. So thank you and good night.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: You know, I realized I forgot a couple of things and I'll be quick. I forgot the thing, Jawn, as well, too. Councilman Clark and Councilman Brooks. You know, for both of your work and your advocacy on that and just just on that tip. Councilman Cashman, look, the one thing I did not say, I mean, we complain about the sausage. But we don't talk about how to make it better sometimes. So here are if you really want to go after affordable housing. Give somebody a living wage so that so rent doesn't become an issue, for crying out loud. Let's pay somebody a fair wage so that, you know, one month to the other they don't get kicked out because they can't make rent. Wages are still low and we have an opportunity to make that happen. And we we really have to put a dent in affordable housing that way. And just think beyond micro units. There are families. I want families to get on a transit route. I want families to bike together. None of us up here believe in a 1980s Denver where, you know, we're pumping crude and filling up at the tank and the gas station and just driving around just for the sake of it. But we want to see this multi-modal Denver, but we want to see it equitably. Fully fund the BRT on Colfax. Playboy calls it the longest, wickedest street in America. That alone would be an awesome Ryan pundit. Right. Funny sidewalks. And not just with bond money, but it's upon us. It's our it's us as council to say this is these are this is the money that we want to put towards our priorities. We can't just make it a priority and a plan and have our awesome staff work on it are awesome, awesome city employees work on it and not fund it. We have the funding, right? That's where. That's where. Let's put our money where our mouth is. The second thing and Councilman Brooks, you're going to probably censure me after this.
Speaker 3: I was going to do that.
Speaker 2: But Denver's Brooklyn Bridge, that Colfax Viaduct, and you cannot bike across it. Well, you cannot walk across it. Well, let's transform it. It's the one thing that has kept the west side and the east side from not being one city. That's the biggest problem. Let's fix the core facts via diet. You can bike, walk and drive and maybe even take the train across it to Bad Colfax being the longest street in America. The only way you can do it is driving. Let's fix that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I think it's the first time Playboy's ever been quoted in a in a council meeting. All right.
Speaker 2: Read the articles.
Speaker 3: Council. Councilman Espinosa. Hopefully you won't take off this time when I praise you. You'll have to rewind the tape there. That's all I'm going to do right now. And doesn't necessarily need to be said, but. This is, you know, councilman or President Brooks. You heard your constituents. Express this concern. You took action. You led this moratorium process, you led that discussion. So it's this is your bill. And you may not agree with the text amendments, but these words are your your words, you know, and you put this out and that directly in response to what you heard. And so it needs to be noted that this is not mean that that that is that is you doing your job, representing your constituents and us doing our job representing our constituents, trying to, to, to put this forward. So I whether it feels like it or not, I see this as the the the Brooks. Brooks Brooks.
Speaker 2: Clarke.
Speaker 3: Bill, because you got us here to a point where we're talking about things and moving forward on that TDM discussion and all these things because we recognize that we don't have the tools that we actually need to make. Denver This sort of pedestrian bike transit city that we know it needs to be. And so I just want to say that, you know, thank you for listening to those concerns because it would have been possible to not. And the fact that we're here today, I just want to thank you topics. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. We got some others up, Councilman Flynn and then Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a brief note, because no meeting would be complete without some pointless historical trivia from me. But just to follow up on Councilman Lopez, the Colfax Viaduct originally was built with the Larimer Viaduct in an open in 1916, was built for Denver Tramway at a total cost of $715,000. Thank you. Built for transit, not for automobiles.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for that. How much or how.
Speaker 7: Much concrete.
Speaker 3: History. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I'll be really brief, and this is probably for a different conversation. But can we talk quality design? I think we should be ensuring that we have units that are going to last for generations into the future and not units that are going to be, you know, falling apart, that need to be replaced in, you know, five, ten years from now. So different conversation for different time. But it's a missing part of the overall big picture conversation. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. In a plug for council. Councilman Espinosa's urban design deal happening on Wednesday. If you're if you're not available to attend, send somebody who can. It's a it's a pretty interesting conversation at 12:00 in the committee. Okay. I'm going to be going to be the last one to speak is one of the privileges that you get as president. And this is a bill that I've been a part of. Councilman Clarke, thank you so much for working hard. It's it's as you can tell, we're friends, frenemies in our district and we're friends. And it's it's it's so great to have very different perspectives on this small piece of legislation, folks, you know, come together and figure out a way forward. So I really appreciate you on that. STAFF Thank you so much. I know you've been through a lot and you've been great and you've provided some incredible information. And Ryan Winsberg, wherever you are in Portland, appreciate you to the committee that serves. Some of you guys are here. Some of you left this conversation a long time ago and when you started getting emails from people because people can be a little harsh and not realize the time that you put in. And so I just want to thank you all from for walking through that process. Councilwoman Jeanie Robb, who originally took this up in 2011. Thank you. And then to all the people who are still here at 915 when you can be doing a million other things, you are here because you love this city. Thank you. You went through security. Some of you pay for parking. And you're sitting in hard, hard seats. And we really appreciate you. And we always respect the right for you to petition your government. It makes us better. So thank you, George. Mail. I want to respond to you. We are not having a conversation really with developers, and I will respond to a lot of emails that I've received that this is mostly developers and neighbors. I can count the number of developers who have been a part of the conversations in the last. Nine months. And it's really neighbors and neighbors, neighbors that have a certain opinion around transportation mobility, neighbors that feel like we're not getting there yet on transportation and mobility. So this is actually a very tough, complex issue because you can't just make it black and white and make a quick decision. So I just wanted to say that Councilwoman Ortega is she drove home. My point and I appreciate you bringing in the urban design. I think that and I counted that's the 11th topical issue that have been thrown onto this very little bitty deal called 60 to 50 lots. It's less than 1%. Just so you know, not more not one less than 1% of our overall make up of 151 square miles. And I get it. There are a lot of issues in our city, but I believe we try to solve way too many things. And it got very confusing. We have parking issues in our city. We have urban design issues in our city. We have affordable housing issues in our city that won't be solved with 60 to 50 square lot exemption. It won't. But you've helped us to say we need to have outlets on urban design. We need to have outlets on affordable housing. We need to do this. We need to do that. We need to do TDM. You've helped us, but this isn't, this isn't gonna solve it. So. The last piece of this? Well, not really the last piece, but. I do have to point out something real quick because we had the affordable housing and folks got pooh poohed. And, you know, this is not affordable housing. Yes, it is. You know, all this conversation according to HUD. Income limits for 80% AMI units. Do you know what the price point is? Anybody want to know? $51,176. Most of these micro units are actually identified as 80%. Am I? So I'm not trying to drive home anyone's point. I just I think it's important to know that standard that if you're at an 80% AMI, the max rent that you can charge in the city is $1,176. Okay. So the city of Denver, we pride ourselves, all of us, to putting forward, you know, progressive legislation and leading the nation in certain issues. We definitely do that socially. We rarely do that from a transportation mobility perspective. I think we're starting to, which is really exciting. Unfortunately, both groups in the social justice part and even in the transportation mobility justice and and just they don't talk. They don't connect. And this is very apparent during this conversation. I feel like. We as a city can be doing much more progressive things around our transportation mobility issues. And it's one of the things that have that has really come clear to me and have in this conversation and pushed me in some areas that I must be much more progressive in the way that I think around this . But I'll be making my decision tonight on two things fear based over data driven analysis. I want to know what is the the 6250 development that has been built in this city. That is causing anxiety. We don't have one. Now, there are some suppositions that could happen when one comes and we're thinking about, Well, this will happen, but we really don't have a development before. So we can study it and analyze and say, okay, because of this, we know that, and now let's make a decision. My bill didn't do that. Council. Councilman Clarksville didn't do that. And I can't support that. I think we need to go back to the drawing board. I love where Councilman Clarke is going and the team, but over. The conversations that I've had from both sides of my neighbors. I do think we need to go back to the drawing board. What that would mean is today if we voted this down. The moratorium. May 26, May 26. The moratorium is up. And we can have a conversation about where we go from here. But I'm just saying. I'm not going to put my name on this because I just there's too many questions. There's too many unanswered questions around it. And with that. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Clark, I.
Speaker 5: Espinosa I.
Speaker 2: Flynn I.
Speaker 8: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 5: Cashman. Lopez.
Speaker 6: I knew.
Speaker 8: Ortega I.
Speaker 5: Susman.
Speaker 6: No. Black. I.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: No, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Sorry. I'm just making sure Black didn't vote. Hmm. It's in the system.
Speaker 3: There we go.
Speaker 6: Oh, my.
Speaker 5: Is it working.
Speaker 3: Or is, isn't it? Shoes. Shoes. I need to wear this. Okay.
Speaker 5: Nine two. That's correct.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Nine eyes, two nays. Council Bill 161 has passed as amended, seeing no other business before this body. We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
Speaker 8: Through the process of awaiting the issuance of a license, they would not be able to expand their hours to 10:00 until they are granted a license and shown they are in full compliance with state and local laws.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots.
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04242017_17-0324
|
Speaker 0: Nothing has been called out under bills or from consideration. Council Bill 324 as amended concerning hours of operation of retail medical marijuana centers has been called out by both Councilman Ortega and Councilman Herndon to offer some new amendments under pending. Nothing has been caught up. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen, Councilor Herndon, where you put Council Bill 324 as amended on the floor.
Speaker 10: Mr. President, I move that council bill 324 as amended, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and second it. Councilman Ortega, will you please offer your first motion to me?
Speaker 7: Sure. And let me just first say that you all received a copy from me last Friday that showed them as one amendment. I separated them out both A and B as separate amendments. So let me start with the first one. Mr. President, I move that to amend Council Bill 17 324 in the following particulars on page one after Section three, add the following subsection and letter appropriately for any location where there is a pending application on May one, 2017 for a new retail. For marijuana store license or a new medical marijuana center license. And there is an existing retail marijuana store or medical marijuana center already operating on the premises. The existing retail marijuana store or medical marijuana center shall remain subject to the former 7 p.m. closing time unless and until the license is granted based upon a determination that the applicant is in compliance with all applicable state and city laws.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded comes from the county council, one or two.
Speaker 7: So what this amendment does is it says that for those applicants that are pending going through the process of awaiting the issuance of a license, they would not be able to expand their hours to 10:00 until they are granted a license and shown they are in full compliance with state and local laws.
Speaker 0: Okay. Comments by other members of council. Questions by other members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Ortega, just in reading the. The unless and until it occurs to me that if an applicant is, say, is applying to add a retail license to an existing medical marijuana center. But then that is denied. Let's suppose that is denied. The way I read this, the existing medical marijuana center would not be able subsequently to a denial to to then extend its hours until ten. Is that your intent or is that do you read that the same way?
Speaker 7: Yes. So as you know, in some cases we have single locations where it's just either a medical or a retail license. So in the case where somebody is wanting to in the case of the medical, they want to add a retail. Correct. They would not be able to expand the hours until they can show that they have complied with everything for the new license at that location. And I would just ask that if there is any further clarification from our city attorney that I'd ask David Bardwell to weigh in on this as well.
Speaker 9: Okay. David, can I ask you then to give your opinion? If the new if the license is being applied for is then denied? Would the existing medical marijuana center be able to extend its hours the way under this wording because it says it shall remain closing at 7 p.m. unless and until the new license is granted? That means if they don't get the license, they can never open them. Told them that.
Speaker 3: David Broadwell, Assistant city attorney. I think that's a correct reading of it. If and if the new licenses denied, I think it's based upon the fact that something is deemed to be wrong at the premises or or in terms of prior behavior of the licensee or lack of qualification for the new license, which is intended to be part of the objective of the amendment is to keep them at seven because some reason arose showing they didn't merit a new license in that location, presumably traceable to some problem at that location. Okay.
Speaker 9: I might suggest it could also simply be because there was no need or desire established for a retail component at the medical location. I don't know why that would handicap the hours for the medical. So I but I do understand the lay out the circumstance you outlined. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, counsel. Councilwoman Blake.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I. I was out of town all weekend. And I know you e-mailed these out late Friday afternoon, but we've spent months talking about this store hours and had hours and hours of community input. And I don't feel like we're going to have any sort of discussion except for what we're doing here. And so. I find that problematic since we spent so much time coming up with a good, solid compromise. But for this particular amendment, I'm wondering what what problem we're trying to solve. I don't understand what this actually does that is beneficial.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, may I respond? Yes. So this is basically focused on ensuring that people who are going through the pending application process and there are only 30 of them. So we're not talking about the entirety of applications or licenses that we have in the city, locations that they are in full compliance with, state and local laws that every licensee is obligated to adhere to. There is no extra cost. This is part of the costs that the city is already incurring in reviewing these applications and doing the inspections and all the other things. I got a letter today from somebody that said we'd have to create some new task force to to look at these pending applications. It's part of the process that they have to go through. But it basically says that until it's deemed that they are in full compliance and issued a license, then at that time they can expand their hours.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: So. In my district, I have a medical center that has been operating for years. I have recently applied for a license to open a retail store. But if they're if they have problems, if they're breaking the rules for their medical license, they're not going to be awarded that retail license.
Speaker 7: So if they're breaking the rules.
Speaker 4: To have it. So I don't know why we there.
Speaker 7: So if they're breaking the rules, that's where my Second Amendment comes in. If they're if they're following all the letter of the law, then they'll be issued their retail license at the same location where their medical is. And they would be granted the opportunity to extend their hours at which time their licenses issued.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then who is going to ensure that they are saying closing down at 7 p.m.?
Speaker 7: It's it's going can be part of the enforcement of our excise and license department, as they do with all of our establishments.
Speaker 4: Though they don't currently inspect that now. So then they're going to you're going to add that, well.
Speaker 7: They know which 30. Our going through the pending process. And I don't know if those 30 are standalones. Actually, in order to apply for a retail license, they already have to have a medical license. So. It's it's a matter of them having to demonstrate that they're in full compliance. As they do today.
Speaker 4: I again, I would feel more comfortable if this is something that we had heard pros and cons from from exercising license from the police from.
Speaker 7: Well, unfortunately, we don't have anybody here tonight from accessing the license. At least I think so.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman, can each.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I will not be supporting the amendment because I. I believe that it tries to create new leverage for something we already have, which is a process to make sure folks are following the rules. I don't believe connecting the hours to it makes clear sense. Right. So the goal is if you aren't following the rules, you don't get the license. That's the consequence. Connecting it to the hours, I think is just confusing, particularly for the public, you know, and for the store owners, too, to really be able to to keep track of. So but I chimed in because if this amendment does pass, there's a typo in it. I think Councilman Ortega caught it when she was reading because she kind of paused at it. But there the first line has a four at the end of it that shouldn't be there. And so I think we can wait and see if it passes and then amend it at that point. Or we can do a friendly amendment if the we haven't done a lot of friendly amendments, but in other bodies they serve on if the if the mover in the second degree that that four is a mistake, then we could perhaps strike it. Now I'm getting the thumbs up from the city attorney. So, yes. Okay. Is the second or third agree?
Speaker 0: Are you okay with that, councilman?
Speaker 10: Yes. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: Finally, a moment to strike that for. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Brough. I just want to be clear. We just did a friendly amendment to strike. Is there anything that I need to do procedurally?
Speaker 3: No, I thought that was fantastic.
Speaker 8: So just.
Speaker 3: Keep going.
Speaker 0: Great, great public. You just want to make sure they're good with your lawyers. Okay. Tell Councilman Lopez you're up. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Mr. President, I think my question was answered and then the series that that was asked.
Speaker 0: So. Great. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I also won't be voting for this amendment. I think it is. As Councilman Kennish alluded to, it's redundant. The exercise in license looks at the behavior of people in their stores. You have to renew your license every year. So when if people are having problems with the stores of the store as a bad actor, there are already a lot of processes in place so that they would not be able to open another store and they would be under some kind of probation, probably at their original store. And I also agree with Councilwoman Kennish that confusing bad behavior with the time you are open doesn't seem to be connected as well as it as conceptually as well as others have said. So I won't be supporting this amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. I have Ortega and Flynn in the queue. Okay. Councilman Ortega, are you.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I just wanted to add just a little bit of statistical information that I think is helpful for the listening audience. So when this. Request originally came to us from the industry. The request was so that customers would have the ability to shop in Denver as opposed to going to our neighboring jurisdictions to buy their product after hours. So if you look at the information that I passed out, we have only two jurisdictions that close at seven to close at eight. Two of them close at nine for close at ten, and only three close at midnight. In total, there are 92 locations throughout the metro area that range from two locations by jurisdiction to the largest number next to Denver, which is 23. That's in Aurora. Denver has 218 locations. And as I shared with you earlier, we have 30 pending licenses and only 12 show Coors licenses, which we'll talk about in the next amendment . So I would just respectfully request your support because I think this is a reasonable amendment to the ordinance. And really it's just making sure that everybody is in full compliance.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Fletcher. Councilman Espinosa just popped up and he hasn't said anything. Do you mind if we go to Councilman Espinosa? Councilman Espinosa? Yeah. It's too bad somebody from Excise and license isn't here. Do you? Councilman Ortega, do by any chance have a sense about sort of what some of the issues outline, what what sort of the questionable issues are with some of the some of these licenses that that are that would be maybe potentially subject to act action on this.
Speaker 7: Are you talking about the Second Amendment, which I haven't read yet? Are you talking about the pending applications?
Speaker 0: More the Second Amendment. The reason why I'm asking, can we.
Speaker 7: Deal with that when we come to it?
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah, we'll deal with that just second. All right. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I did want to try to get a clarification. And also I join Councilman Espinosa in bemoaning the fact that we don't have exercise in license here to address some of this. But Councilman Ortega, do you. You keep saying 30 pending licenses. The last report we have that I had was as of April 1st, there were still 60. Are you saying that there are 30 of those 60 that fit the circumstances and you have that figure from excise.
Speaker 7: Information that I received from exercise on a license. Okay.
Speaker 9: I just wanted that clarification, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved in. Second amount of secretary. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Brooks. I wasn't quick enough. I wanted to get a quick point of clarification from Councilwoman Ortega that we're only talking about the the 7 p.m. closing time, that there still is the entire needs and desires hearing process as well. So so you're proposing to also have the needs and desires hearing process, either a daytime or an evening hearing for these pending licenses, but then also restrict their hours of operation to 7 p.m. until they're approved. Is that correct?
Speaker 7: It is already part of the current ordinance that they have to go through. I'm not adding that as something in addition because it's already there. So all I'm saying is that as people are going through the pending application process, they have to demonstrate that they're in full compliance with state and local laws before they can expand their hours. And it would be after the licenses issued.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Here we go. Council. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And I apologize for having so many questions here, but didn't get a chance to review it and have the discussion. I'm also echo that I'm sorry we don't have staff here to answer some of this, but as I'm reading through this, in my reading, you write that if there's somebody who's in good standing but they have a pending license, they could be stuck at seven. Even if there's somebody who is in who has something that they're working through that they're in trouble with, and they could automatically go to ten because they don't have a pending license. So this could snare somebody in good standing because they're pending. Well, somebody who's not in great standing is able to open the ten while they're working to come into full compliance with whatever they're in violation.
Speaker 7: It's based on the location. David, do you want to add anything further?
Speaker 3: Councilman Clark, I was listening carefully to your question. When you say not in good standing. The next amendment that the councilwoman is going to propose regards a similar sanction on people who are pending some disciplinary action. And if they have some sort of show cause or disciplinary action pending, they too will be stuck at 7 p.m. unless and until the disciplinary action is resolved.
Speaker 5: So so would that one would ensnare, whether it's at the same location or not. Anyone who has pending would already get snared in the Second Amendment, and this amendment might snare someone who is in good standing but happens to have something pending.
Speaker 3: Yes, but. But. But both. Both relate to the specific location, either the specific location where a new license is pending or the specific location where a disciplinary action is pending. Both categories, if both amendments were to pass, would be subject to staying at 7 p.m..
Speaker 5: But if somebody was going through disciplinary action and had something pending, this one doesn't pass. The next one does. They would still be stuck at seven because they're under disciplinary action. Correct? Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: Well, thank you, Mr. President. I think this discussion is an excellent example of why bringing amendments to council night puts us all into confusion. We have a regular marijuana committee that meets regularly and asks people from both sides or not as if there were two sides from all sides of issues like this, so that we can help get our questions answered to think carefully through what the what the implications are with their unintended consequences. And that's why I think it's very difficult to be doing committee work on the bench.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Uh, Councilman Espinosa, you back up? Cashman, can you go to Councilman Cash? Yeah. Yeah, let's go to Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Abstinence from the thing.
Speaker 0: As an escort. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, you're back up and you're not in your seat. You know, this happens in Washington. You know. That's as close to your back up. I'm trying to. So I wish I could ask that other question and understand all these proposed amendments collectively because. I support these in concept. But, you know it's it creates. I'm more interested in the next amendment, which is the disciplinary action, because this would if if an amendment on the front end hours is is passed by this council, as has been discussed previously, you could with this one amendment when there isn't disciplinary action involved, could essentially squeeze in the inner you know in this the reduce the total number of hours that these current licensees could operate. So I wish I understood how I mean, I wish we could ascertain all three together. So I miss Mr. Bradwell because I wasn't totally following your in council and Clark's discussion. This. This this amendment that is currently on the floor. Is is agnostic on whether there is disciplinary action or not. Correct. Correct. But this amendment does not. Passing or failure of this amendment does not preclude anything in the subsequent amendment that Councilwoman Ortega is proposing. Correct?
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. It has been moved going once. And second to Madam Secretary, Rocco.
Speaker 1: Ortega, I. SUSMAN No.
Speaker 4: BLACK No.
Speaker 1: Clark No.
Speaker 0: ESPINOSA Asim.
Speaker 6: Flynn. Gilmore No.
Speaker 1: Brandon Cashman, No. Can each.
Speaker 5: LOPEZ No.
Speaker 1: New.
Speaker 0: ESPINOZA Hi.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. Please close voting against the results.
Speaker 1: Sorry. I'm just making sure.
Speaker 0: I think we got everybody.
Speaker 1: Okay. Five eyes and eight knees.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that's.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Black voted no. No, and she turned up as a yes.
Speaker 7: We have to run, but.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll change it to and May. And so we have Espinosa earned in New Ortega as. Yes.
Speaker 0: News. No.
Speaker 1: Two only changed that one.
Speaker 0: So it should be I think it should be three.
Speaker 5: Feet.
Speaker 1: Three, ice, ten.
Speaker 10: You said he was nine.
Speaker 1: You were ninth. Okay. Four ice. And nine. Yes.
Speaker 0: I believe, councilman. Just for the record, councilman who said no, but he is an I.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Okay. Great. So verify that it is. The amendment fails. Um, and Councilman Ortega. But your second. You have another motion, so please read your second motion to.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 17 through 24 in the following particulars on page one after Section three, add the following subsection and letter appropriately for any location where there is a pending disciplinary action in regard to a retail marijuana store license or a medical marijuana center license on May one, 2017, the retail marijuana store or Medical Marijuana Center shall remain subject to the former 7 p.m. closing time unless and until the disciplinary action is concluded, including any judicial appeals from the disciplinary action.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved and seconded. Your explanation of the amendment, Councilwoman Taylor.
Speaker 7: So this. Amendment prohibits extending the hours for a licensed marijuana business from 7 p.m. until 10 p.m.. In cases where there is a pending disciplinary action against the business, let me also clarify that this changed from the previous copy that you received. We had someone raise a question about whether or not we were talking about the holder of a license, and it was not my intent to have the holder of a license that may be named in an LLC with another location. To be affecting any other location is only the location where the disciplinary action has taken place. So that's what this would do.
Speaker 0: All right. Questions. Comments. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. So I guess my concern my question on this one is, in my district, we've had a couple of of locations that have been bad actors. And in an effort to get them out, someone else has come in to that location, taken over the licenses and turned around to be very positive, contributing to the community, working with the neighborhood associations. So if my reading this right that the new person who's coming in to try and fix the problem because it's tied to the location would be essentially penalized because that location was under review. I guess that I didn't quite catch what you're talking about with the location versus the person. But I know in my district we have had some actors that weren't doing a good job and were able to replace them at that location with really good ones. So it's.
Speaker 7: A let David chime in, but it's the location with the people that are operating at the time.
Speaker 5: That the new operator where to come in is not so.
Speaker 0: So, David, could you clarify between location in license.
Speaker 3: It is location and the the requirement to stay at 7 p.m. is during the pendency of the disciplinary action. After the disciplinary action is resolved, however it's resolved it then goes to ten. If the disciplinary action is a revocation of the license, there's nothing there anymore to stay open till ten, seven or ten. Right. But but the way it's worded, it's only staying at seven while the disciplinary action is pending. It doesn't forever run with the land, councilman, if that's why one of your concerns is just during that finite time period. Okay.
Speaker 5: And then my second question is with this during any appeal. So if they're if they move out of this, can a positive hey, now the disciplinary action we've resolved that be appealed or is that again, I'm confused and concerned if somebody fixed the problem, could someone raise an appeal against them in in an attempt to keep them closed earlier? I'm not too familiar with the appeals process.
Speaker 3: That the use of appeal in this context means that some sanctions have been imposed against the licensee. They decide to take it to court, to challenge it. And as long as that court challenge continues, they're going to be stuck at 7:00. As long as they continue to fight the discipline.
Speaker 5: But that would mean that the court has decided that they should be disciplined, not that they've been off the hook. They've said, oh, no, you're good. You can't appeal. You can't get stuck in and appeal that way. Only if the court has ruled that you were in violation and should be punished. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. A similar question to Councilwoman Ortega. You had mentioned earlier that there were about a did you say 12 locations or 12 existing medical marijuana centers or retail that are currently in this? I caught up in this amendment that had pending disciplinary action.
Speaker 7: That is correct.
Speaker 9: It's 12. And that came from excise and license.
Speaker 7: Correct?
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted that clarification.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. So I actually wanted to ask, when I was working on our cap bill last year, I learned that there is a very wide range of issues that you can have with the license, ranging from not having a plant tagged to like black market trafficking out the back door. And we spent a lot of time last year thinking about that and defining it very carefully. Now, when you see I just am curious, because this language just says pending disciplinary action, it doesn't say for a year, it doesn't say for a show cause hearing, and it also doesn't say for a serious matter. And so I just wanted to check with, you know, Mr. Broadwell to see whether or not this is adequately narrow language to really be as narrow as you're describing it. Because we might as my understanding, you needed to use much narrower language to get at just serious offenses versus at any given time. You know, we have dozens and dozens of folks who have small issues that, you know, maybe a reporting error, a lag in a report, which are, I think in a class that I think we would all agree is different than, you know, having serious concerns. So I just wanted to ask about that issue. And I know it's hard without the department here, but.
Speaker 7: So let me just address that very quickly. The list that I received from exercising license does not give me any indication what the type of violations are. I would assume that they are looking at very egregious violations to create a show, cause hearing and warrant somebody to have to come in as opposed to not having a plant tape, you know, without having somebody here to answer these questions. And I'm not sure why we didn't ensure that somebody from exercising a license was here is a little concerning. But, you know, I'm happy to share this document with you, but it doesn't clarify what the offenses are that put them in this condition.
Speaker 6: Of.
Speaker 3: Use and disciplinary action. Is the term used in the code, both the medical code and the retail code, to apply to any rule violation, any statutory or local city ordinance violation. So it is a generic term that encompasses both major and minor to get to your original point.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 6: So I get the idea of, if I may, Mr. President, yes, I get the idea of serious violations, which I'm guessing if there's show cause hearings, there are. But the language is not narrow enough and I cannot support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. I think we have. I'm sorry. Our list, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Brooks. I wanted to I on the list that you had sent out Councilman Ortega for the show cause hearings. The there's a step activation date and then an expiration date since we don't have someone here from excise and licensing. Can you answer what the step activation date and the expiration date? How how those if you could explain those a little bit more, that would help to make a decision on this amendment.
Speaker 7: So when I requested the data, this is what I received. There wasn't any clarification or explanation provided. That gives me some clear distinction to adequately address your question.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. So I guess looking at this, I share the concern that Councilwoman Sussman had talked about, that it's really hard to make a decision on an amendment to a piece of legislation without having a conversation and without having to. Without being able to ask excise and licensing exactly what this means, how it's going to be enforced. And all of those questions that I think in making good legislation would be asked. And so I just wanted to put that out there. And. Thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Down to Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Ortega, I told you earlier today in an email that. In concept, I'm not opposed to this, but I think there's too many unknowns. Again, there's a lot of questions that we're not getting answered. It's also not honoring due process. I'm also concerned about competitors. I in my district, we had some issues with some competitors accusing a another business of something that might have been unfounded. And in in that situation, someone would not have their due process. I, I feel like in concept I could get behind this, but there really are too many unknowns. And if we could have a larger discussion about it and hear from all the sides and have. Talk through what those questions are and get the answers to those questions. But as it is tonight, I just feel like there are too many, too many unknowns.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Martel. You mind if I get to Espinosa a little bit? Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez was actually second to chime in, and for some reason, the system is going in. It's going haywire. So I defer to him. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, sorry about that.
Speaker 5: Okay. Well, I just my question was, how many? I'm trying to figure in concept I'm supportive of the idea. I'm just trying to figure out how many how many licenses at any given time are in some kind of disciplinary. Procedure or what has been the majority of disciplinary actions? I mean, have they been serious? Have they been. Small. I mean, I think I'm thinking a disciplinary action could possibly be, you know, serious violations like saying to a minor or, you know, not securing a door. But I'm wondering if it was maybe if someone can be disciplined for lighting or for storage or. I'm not too sure. I just kind of want to understand the range of of of disciplinary actions and what the majority has been.
Speaker 7: So, again, this is where somebody from excise and license should be here to help answer those questions. And I just want to very clearly state that if you recall, at the last meeting we had, I passed out a document that had some amendments that we didn't have time to discuss because there was a rush to get this ordinance filed and bring it forward. So we didn't get to have the discussion in committee as opposed to having it on the floor now. This is a different take from what I brought forward at that meeting. There wasn't an appetite for some of those recommendations that I made. But, you know, it's the prerogative of any council member to file a bill or an amendment to bills at any time. And so I think it's important that we ensure that as a city, we are doing the due diligence that is required to ensure that we have operations in full compliance before they are issued a license and then allowed to extend their hours. And if we have people going through the disciplinary process, they shouldn't automatically get to expand their hours until those issues are resolved. And so that's what this does. I'm sorry, I can't answer your question about how many and what all are the various types of ongoing disciplinary incidents that, you know, come through exercise and license on on a regular basis? The information that I've shared with you is what I receive from excise and license about the number that are in process right now. And that's 12. In terms of those that are going through the disciplinary process and we'll have a show cause hearing.
Speaker 0: Councilman. You want to.
Speaker 5: If I may, would you be open? There's a thing I think there's a lot of unknowns and I think in concept. Councilman Ortega, I support something like this. I mean, in a lot of ways. And, you know, I've been going back and forth and. Okay. Do we regulate like alcohol and keep to the spirit of kind of regulating like alcohol? But I look at the alcohol regs and they're totally messed up. That's nothing to model. Right. It's for me, it's like that's really nothing, the model, because it's very weak. And it was written with with no business owners only in mind. But when I, when I, when we compare something to like like this, I mean, I bring that up because this is something I would definitely be interested in for other. Purposes for even alcohol, retail, alcohol. I think for us there's a lot of issues and when and with that side of it and when I look at when I asked the question in committee of the Denver Police Department, can you show me any crimes related to properties or what are the crimes related to properties of dispensaries versus retail alcohol? By a long shot, it was retail liquor stores that were like completely problematic. Right. And if we had something like this to be able to punish it and say, okay, well, you know, the problem is, is that it's all state legislation, right? And we can't touch it. So I guess that's my point being that, you know, the regs for alcohol totally are lame. And I think we're getting a little bit more thoughtful when it comes to marijuana. So when in saying that, Councilwoman, would you be open to. I would I would love to hear the excise and license chime in on this. I would love to hear some of our questions on this. And I don't know if maybe you'd be open to a postponement rather than see this go down in flames.
Speaker 7: Well, it doesn't mean that if it goes down, we couldn't bring it back and have further conversation about it.
Speaker 5: That's just my only concern is I would rather hear that information and data. Yeah, it's sad that we didn't.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. As you know, a bill can come back any time for amending it. So, Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. President. So I think part of the reason why the MJ businesses is better off than are better actors than the liquor industry in some cases is because of the rulemaking that has been done to date , both by this body and excise and licensing. But I wanted to sort of first speak to the councilman. Clark used the word penalize. And I just want to say that I don't actually see this as penalizing Asian because, you know, these businesses currently thrive in the in the with the 7:00 window. So being stuck with that 7:00 window during disciplinary action just means that you probably have greater incentive that if you if everyone if the windfall and incentive mean the windfall that everyone believes going to later hours is that's incentive to sort of rectify your disciplinary action, you know, in a sort of strong and an enduring way. I have one question for councilman and then a follow up with David Broadwell. Councilwoman Greenwich, you had used some phraseology about what we I can't remember what it is about the sort of degrees of discipline. What was the terms that you just used?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I was just looking to see if I could get access to any of my records from the first marijuana debate last year. And I don't they're all archives. But as I recall, there was a class of violations that were considered safety sensitive and they were eight of them maybe that Marley had identified and, and then everything else was more administrative. Not that it, you know, not that tagging plants is an important, but it's not quite the same safety risk as, you know, serving two minors, for example. And so so so there was a clear line and it was a line that excise and license themselves had used in internally. But it wasn't something as as I think David has confirmed that this language captures. So so there is a there is a line out there and I and I believe that correct me if I'm wrong, David, as I trying to find this, I couldn't I think we might have written it into the standards for the lottery. If the lottery was ever to occur, then folks who have a violation in that class of those safety sensitive violations is not eligible to be in the lottery. I think that's where we used this distinction, if I'm not mistaken, and apologize.
Speaker 3: That's a very good reminder, I think. I think that is accurate in terms of why we were making the distinction in that ordinance.
Speaker 0: So I wish we had that exact language because the question I have for Mr. Broadwell is if we had if if there was a simple amendment of the amendment to after it says for any location where there is pending pending disciplinary action and we inserted and the manager has determined the vehicle manager of exercise license has determined the violation is is is a safety suit since sensitivity or whatever that language is does that you know. You know what? What I'm trying to do is is there an amendment that could be offered that would actually both require them to be having pending disciplinary action and leave some latitude for the manager of excise and license to have rulemaking on their side to sort of determine when when it is the threshold is crossed where it warrants restricting maintaining these hour restrictions versus not.
Speaker 3: Councilman. What you just said is doable. That's not how I was directed to draft. But there would be ways to make distinctions or nuances in terms of who has to stay by the 7:00 hour and who doesn't. This is this was designed whether whether we were to scramble and make some sort of distinction or pull the code and see how we've done it in other contexts. It still is only relevant to those that are pending on on May 1st. Do I have the right May 1st of 2017? Right. This is to say, everybody on if if the bill passes, everybody on May 1st is going to be able to go to 10 p.m.. The purpose of both of the Ortega memos was to suggest, but there will be some exceptions. The one you're debating now is for the really small number that are facing some sort of disciplinary action right now. And unfortunately, we're all kind of at a loss in terms of. Councilman, your question. Knowing of that number, how many of them would be in the serious category versus how many wouldn't? We just don't know. You know, in terms of as we sit here right now.
Speaker 0: Thanks for that. Because it's sort of overlooked the date definition because that's that's sort of where I guess this this rule fails is that if there's this is if there's disciplinary if I understand that part, if there's disciplinary action later, you can't actually go back in and reduce hours.
Speaker 3: That's right. This amendment wouldn't cause you to have to roll back to seven. Next year or the year after pending disciplinary action. This only has to do with the ones that are in the pipeline now with some sort of disciplinary action as the law goes into effect. That's the way it's drafted.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I see let's see here. Let's go to Councilman Antioch. If we go to Councilman Clark in Flint.
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 0: Actually, in New and her goodness OC clerks.
Speaker 5: I think he was the president and Councilman Espinosa almost asked my exact question. So thank you for that. You know, I will stick with my word penalty because I think everyone else is allowed to do something. But you got in trouble and you're not. Sounds like penalty to me. But other than that, your question was what underwear? What I was wondering. So, you know, I in theory, I have like this idea. And, you know, as we dig further into it, I have more unanswered questions, which makes it really hard up here making a decision now. But I do worry about the same thing when I had similarly overlooked the date and then went back to it and said, Wait a second, so this is only for these 12 people. What about the people who get disciplinary action on May 2nd? There can still up until ten and I guess I would prefer we have a broader conversation about is a penalty of going to 7:00 a good method of getting bad actors to play by the rules and be good. And if it is, then it's broader than just these 12. These 12 seem to fall into a weird snafu of you happen to have discipline on this date. That might not be a very big thing. Maybe it was a plant tag that you were in trouble with on May 1st and the next day somebody got some black market trafficking and they can stay open until ten. Again, I think, you know, I like the idea. I'm just struggling with the details and the nuance of of how it would work. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Let's see here. I'm losing weight. We're having some issues with our Flynn. Are you are you next?
Speaker 9: Yeah. Mr. President, I just clicked out because Councilman Clark actually spoke to some of what I was was going to suggest. And I just wanted to say that I now understand why exercising licenses in here.
Speaker 0: And I think when you're. Well, we'll save that for another day.
Speaker 5: Councilman, new. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think all of us are frustrated because we don't have enough information. We don't have the right people here to answer our questions. And and we didn't get a chance to talk about it in committee. And so I hope that I echo Councilor Lopez suggestion of postponing this and hopefully both of these bill ones that failed. And when this one can come back and have a can be further defined and discussed at Councilwoman Blake's committee, and we can bring forward something that that we can all agree on. So thank you, Mr. Brennan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. And I look at Councilman Ortega, and maybe you want to wait to the rest of the comments. But that suggestion of potentially bringing this back to this idea to committee, are you open to that?
Speaker 7: I'm open to that. I'd like to hear the rest of the comments.
Speaker 0: Great. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Brooks. I had tried to pull out my comment because Councilman Clark had asked my question. And so it won't let me they won't.
Speaker 0: Let me know.
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Granicus. Okay, um, let's see. Uh, Councilman Espinosa, did you pull out, too? No, I didn't. I'm back.
Speaker 8: Here.
Speaker 0: So I wish we had a sausage making committee so that we could. We could do this. You know, when when there are there things because there's a lot of merit to I see in this. And and so my kneejerk reaction was always, yeah, I support this sort of thing. But now after just hearing the conversation and dialog among my colleagues, which we can't do, and unless it's a public meeting and if we didn't touch on it at the committee meetings that we had, you end up in this situation. But so the two things that I would like to see, you know, and I could offer them in motion and amend, but I don't I would rather have the council, the sponsor, take this up if if she if she chooses is. Yeah, I would like to see inclusion of the manager of excise and licensing in determining the level of violation and then to make this work both now and in the future. It should simply read on May 1st, 2017, or after. And once you do those two things, I sort of think that for me, you capture some latitude by the manager who is more who is tremendously more versed in the subject matter. And it makes it so that this disciplinary action is a tool that is, in fact, there for subsequent violations. Thanks. Okay, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: So the only problem with that recommendation is make first is next week. So trying to address any of these applications that are going or operations, I should say, that are going through the disciplinary action means that they will automatically get to expand their hours to 10:00 unless we postpone the entire ordinance tonight. And the fact is that when we had most of these discussions. Until we specifically and until I specifically asked excise and license to provide information and come to committee to answer certain questions. They were not part of the conversation. This was city council making these decisions, which, yes, we are the legislative body, but we have to have input from excise and license to be able to understand what the full implications are of some of these things that we're talking about and without having the information readily available to all of us. It is hard to make these decisions. And so, you know, yes, we get to do this, but we can't do this in a vacuum. And so I am more than happy to withdraw this amendment, but I would respectfully request that we change the date of the. You know, the enforcement date or the activation date of when we extend the ten PM hours. Otherwise, this conversation tonight is a moot point if all we're going to do is see every one of them get to expand their hours to ten o'clock. And we're not going to do anything different with folks who are. Currently in review for various disciplinary actions, which again, we don't really have clarity on how severe or how minor those issues are. All I know is that we've got 13 of them in the process right now.
Speaker 0: Okay, Councilman Ortega, I'm going to I'm going to say this and I'll let Councilwoman Black, this is your bill so you can chime in, too. Is there any appetite to move the date at all? Councilman Black.
Speaker 4: Not on my part. I mean, we've been talking about this since January. Okay. I'm of.
Speaker 0: Conversation. I'm going to suggest that we move forward then and just vote this up or down. Councilman Ortega and I will I will say, just as my comments, that I love the idea of this, because you and I both sat in a public hearing to until midnight for not so good actor. I do not believe it's in the right context in the Times. There's other ways for us to get after these bad actors. And so I wonder if bringing the whole conversation back to committee to see if there's another area where we can address this. But in spirit, I will. I'm supportive. But if you want to move this.
Speaker 7: Let's vote it up or down. Because if we're not really going to deal with this because we're not changing the date. Like I said, the conversation is a moot point. In terms I think there are other things we can talk about dealing with those applications that are going through the, you know, review process. But let's just vote on the amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved in second. Madam Secretary, Raquel Ortega Sussman.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 1: Black.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: Clerk. No Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Pass.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 6: Gilmore, no.
Speaker 5: Herndon, I.
Speaker 1: Cashman can eat.
Speaker 5: Lopez No.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: Espinosa. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. All right, please close voting in US Results.
Speaker 1: Four eyes, 94.
Speaker 0: Eyes, nine nays. The motion to amend fails. Okay, Councilman Herndon, will you please read your motion to amend?
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 324 as amended, be further amended in the following particulars. On page one lines 19 through 20, delete 8 a.m. and substitute with 9 a.m. and also delete 10 p.m. and substitute with 9 p.m.. Then on page one, line 28, delete 8 a.m. and substitute with 9 a.m. and then delete 10 p.m. in substitute with 9 p.m..
Speaker 0: Um hmm. Councilman, I'm curious what amendment you're reading from. This is a new one.
Speaker 10: It is, Mr. President. And I will explain and I will explain in my comments.
Speaker 0: On the fly. Okay. Councilman Herndon, please explain the rationale for your amendment.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. My amendment that I was originally was going to bring forward was shifting the hours from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.. When I had conversations with my council colleagues, I did not garner enough support to do that. So it didn't seem prudent just to do a vote on that to when I knew it wasn't going to be successful. So I don't and I'm not suggesting that I know that 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. will be successful. But as I was sitting here listening to the conversation and thinking back to why some of my colleagues had challenges with the 10 to 10 window, I thought this might be something that B strike that would strike a balance. So let me start with the rationale behind it. So right now, this is the option. If you want to purchase in the city and county of Denver, you have a8am window to 7 p.m. That is the current window right now. And whether you vote with this amendment, you will have 12 hours or whether you vote with the amendment that Councilman Black had, you will have 14 hours. So no matter what happens today, you will have the ability to purchase more marijuana at later hours within the city and county of Denver. But as we have had this conversation and I want to applaud Councilwoman Ortega for being a champion with pushing back about the speed of this bill and the fact that some of her amendments were considered. Because I do agree with that. I'm I'm not sure why. There has seemed to be a rush, in my opinion, to move this forward. But the question that I have asked is, well, what if the window was wrong? Why not shift it? But to do that, you need to know the data of how our current dispensaries are open. And that data we didn't even get in the marijuana committee. I had to reach out to excise and license and say, help me understand where the current hours are right now. And I appreciate excise and licensing that I sent it to all my council colleagues. We got data on just under 200 stores. There were some information that excise and license was unable to get, but they gave us the start times that they opened as well as the times that they closed. And as I was looking at this data from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., 99% of the stores were open. So they were they were diligently trying to maximize the tail end of that. There was one random store that closed at 530 for some reason, not sure why. But then as we turned and looked at the front end from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., approximately 20% of the stores are open, and that's it. And so I was reaching out to some people in the industry that aren't open at 8 a.m. and say, well, why aren't you open during this time period? And I don't pretend to say that they speak for the entire industry, but as they conveyed to me, well, there's not there's not a market at that time. And maybe some of those that are open at 8 a.m. are doing it because they need to capture that revenue because we don't have hours that go late enough in the evening. And so as I'm sitting there thinking, because as soon as you say, can we have more a community, a community that I represent that has had some adverse impacts that this industry has impacted on them? How do you make sure that they are a part of that conversation? Because I feel as if that community has not been heard. When we had the conversation about shall we have the pending applications go through? Community came out in droves. Globeville, Swansea came out. My fellow came out of the communities and said, We are saturated and we have not felt the we have had adverse impacts. And since that time where we move those pending applications forward, I thought it would be interesting to find out to the industry how if you better engage that community, which is why in committee I asked the question, could you give me an example of a good neighbor agreement that is in my district? Because that to me is a testament to, hey, we're reaching out to the community. Since then, I couldn't get one. And that's troubling to me. But I also I also believe that there is a case that there should be hours that are extended. So I have a community that I represent that does not feel that they have gained the benefit that people talk about and an industry that hasn't engage them. But you also have a very valid concern as you look at the data that says there's probably a case for later hours. So that's how I try to strike a balance. I thought a ten the ten would work, but some of my colleagues had concerns about that. The data that I talked about, 22% open at 8 a.m.. But guess what? 45% open at nine, and that would impact that 45%. So, okay, let's shift it forward. You have a 9 a.m. to a 9 p.m.. The industry gets there later, hours to additional hours on the back end. We're impacting less because now the only and I say only, but I do recognize that 22% that's open at 8 a.m. this will impact you. But I'm also trying to represent a community amount below a Northpark Hill and he's Colfax is my district was a city we would have more dispensaries than Aurora. Based off of the information that Councilwoman Ortega gave. And so I'm trying to strike that balance. And I believe that a 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. is a way to do so. And I just, I, I am I'm, I am waiting for the liquor argument to come up and I just sit there and say, we're talking about marijuana hours and this body wants to create a committee of the whole to address liquor. I'm game. But the reality is we're talking about marijuana hours. And I want to find a way that we can strike a balance, because I don't believe the community has been heard during this conversation and I'm trying to be the voice of the community. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I think I would disagree with Councilman Herndon about that. There wasn't enough time or that this decision was rushed. I recall that we had several committee meetings about times and we had public comment from the community and we had people around the table talking about this. As I recall, it began with the proposal that the stores would stay open till midnight and the committee decided at 10:00 was a compromise. Instead of midnight, I was very interested in the data that you relayed that there might not be a market for this or a market for that for this time or market for that time . It's another reason why I'm a little concerned that we are trying to micromanage our businesses ability to do their business and that they themselves would know what market they have and they would have staffing considerations and things like that. Edit We did have data about crime related to marijuana locations and as you and I know, we only have a couple along Colfax and the many neighbors there say the places where the marijuana stores are safer than other blocks along Colfax because they are guarded and they have video cameras. It's also true that we got information about crime. That crime happens in marijuana stores when they're closed, unlike perhaps the crime that happens. It's that liquor store that, again, you and I are familiar with and the bad actors in the liquor stores. Those happen very often. While the liquor stores open, crime in marijuana stores happen more likely when the marijuana stores are closed. So allowing them to be open a little bit longer seems to make sense from that point of view. I am in favor of the ten hour at 10:00 time and the original opening time and will not be supporting the amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilman Herndon. Councilman Herndon, thank you for bringing up the community input. When we had our conversation last year about locations and number of licenses, we did in fact, hear loud and clear for from hundreds of community members who felt very strongly about that. And we really tried to address it in that bill where we cap locations. In this particular case, we did not hear from even dozens of people. We had, as Councilwoman Sussman said, we had three public comments. We had one hearing last week for an hour. We didn't even fill the hour. Many of us reached out to our constituents. I reported back that many of my constituents didn't even know what time the stores closed. And we did hear from the inner neighborhood cooperation, which was in support of 10 p.m., and that is the compromise that we all agreed to. And I'm really proud of the work we did. I see Aubrey Le Viso shaking his head back there. He was one of the community representatives who supported the 10 p.m.. Had we heard a lot of opposition, we might not have agreed to that 10 p.m., but I, I didn't hear it. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I am pretty clear. I was at the committee meetings that weren't televised, actually, they all were. And, and prior I was always clear that I was in support of that shift that you had proposed, but that was there was always 10:00 to 10:00. And my constituents largely have coalesced around the 10:00, the idea of 10:00. Now, I know that I would have some constituents that would absolutely love me if I were to support a 9:00 hour. But that is really that is really sort of a very select few that are directly impacted by these businesses, which I feel for them . But, you know, I've always been supportive of that 10 to 10. This one was sort of a little bit by surprise. I would certainly support it. If you're trying to capture that 45, certainly support a 9 to 10 extension. But sort of I just want to be clear, since we hadn't talked about that, you know, it wasn't the hours shift, it was the hour shift to ten that I always was in support of. And so just I just want to be transparent in that. So because I don't want people to think I'm going against my word when I said I always supported a shift of the hours, but I was always coalescing around that 10:00 hour. So unless we amend back to 10:00, I suddenly find myself in a weird position where I can't necessarily support this. This amendment is now put on the floor. Sorry. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Ortega, you were first.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to speak in support of this amendment and first start out by saying that. You're correct, Councilwoman Black, that there were not a lot of community residents who came. Having talked to many of them who came during the last process to share their concerns about the number of licenses which we did not cap. Some of us tried to do that, and the number of locations that are clearly targeted in predominantly lower income communities across this city. And, you know, this is especially so on the growth side. But even when you look at our demographics on the store side as well, and I talked to some of the residents who had come to previous meetings who felt like because we're we hear more from the industry folks than we do from residents, that their voice is far overshadowed and our decisions are made based primarily on the input that we have from the industry. And, you know, they feel like their input falls on deaf ears. So I just think it's important to ensure that we do have a balance of discussion. It's why I insisted, as well as some of my colleagues, that before we move the ordinance forward, which there was a push to move it out even before we had a chance to hear from exercise a license, to hear from the community so that it wasn't just the industry. And I get this was a request from the industry. It's something that we have, you know, moved through the process. We've had folks, you know, share their concerns and their thoughts about the whole thing. But the reality is, I don't believe as a whole and as a city, we continue to have a balanced conversation. When we talk about the fact that I made a request early on when this committee was created to have a discussion about THC levels. It has not been regulated at the state house. Whether we will do that or not, I don't know. But we should at least have a discussion about it because I have data from Denver Public Schools on the fact that we've got six schools right now that have school based clinics that are seeing children for cannabis use disorder, alcohol use disorder, hallucinogenics and. Disorder, stimulant disorder, opioid disorder. So they are they are seeing kids in these schools. They want to expand this to include six more high schools where kids are consuming not only alcohol, but. They have such easy access to. Cannabis that, you know, we don't talk about the unintended consequences. That's a reality of what is happening in our community. You've heard me talk about the fact that we've got more young people living in our city that are on our 16th Street Mall. And we, some of us, get hounded by the downtown Denver partnership, wanting us to solve the problem of homelessness on the 16th Street Mall. Councilman Brooks and I have been to community meetings where even our residents who live downtown refer to these folks as urban travelers. They even say these are not our homeless. So, you know, there are some unintended consequences. That needs to be part of the conversation that we're having around the impact of marijuana. Are we operating in a way that most operators are responsible? I believe that to be true. But at the same time, does it mean that every time we get a request to push, the floodgates opened wider and wider and wider that we need to do that? I mean, God, we have 218 locations in Denver compared to our neighboring jurisdictions, you know, a total of 92 combined in our neighboring jurisdictions. You know, my suggestion was let's do a lottery like some of them have, and figure out how we allow them to, you know, decide who gets to expand. There wasn't an appetite for that. So we've got all 218 on the table that now get to expand as of next week when the ordinance goes into effect . And we're not going to treat pending applications any differently. We're not going to treat any of the bad actors any differently that are going through the the whole show cause process. And I just think as a city, we need to be a lot more conscientious about the unintended consequences and especially about the impact on our kids. And I'm looking forward to the meeting that we have where we can have Denver Health and Children's Hospital and some of the other entities that are dealing with kids, especially ending up in emergency rooms who are, you know, consuming edibles or smoking pot because the THC level is so strong in the product. So I'm going to stop at that. But I'm going to be voting for this amendment tonight. Right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. We have too much marijuana in the community. We have too much alcohol in the community. We have too much opioids in the community. But I'm a believer that we've learned the lesson that prohibition does not work. There are a whole lot of other things I think we need to be doing to address the addiction and substance abuse crisis we have in this country. I don't believe monkeying with the hours a little bit is going to do that one way or the other. If we set the hours tonight, as this bill suggests, at 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. as Councilman Herndon's information that he was kind enough to pass on shows us we're not going to have 200 and some dispensaries operating from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. They're profit making businesses. They're going to set their hours as is appropriate as they best see that their customer base is asking for. And that's that's been my position all the way along here. I want to make it reasonably convenient for consumers to if they work one shift, they've got a few hours into the evening that they can pick up their product. If they work another, they can go in the early morning and pick that up. I don't think there's a person on city council that isn't I don't think there's one person on this council more concerned about our children than another. The. One of the main benefits that I see of legalizing marijuana for recreational use is the hit we've made on the black market. And all the information I'm looking at tells me that we're doing a pretty good job of making a dent on the black market. So to. Like I say, to to open the door. From for more black market infiltration doesn't make sense to me. I support those and have for for a while who are concerned about the potency of the product. I hope we can take a good look at that. And I also last thing I'd like to do, and I do want to thank Councilwoman Black when we had the presentation. From the industry on the case for extended hours. I felt that that was a little unbalanced and I asked the councilwoman, could we have another session and give the other side an opportunity to present their case and which which we had. And I think we've. I think we've heard the information from the industry we need to hear. I think the the the public has had the opportunity to weigh in. I am amazed at how few contacts I've had. On both sides of the issue. I will say I have not received one call. I mean, before this all came up in committee of someone saying, hey, I can't can't get my weed. You know, would. Would you extend the hours and get one call? I've had. A few people in the community contacted me directly to weigh in about the hours. So. So what I've got to say. I'll be voting for the the original bill of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. See you back in the queue. Yeah, mostly because my comments prior were sort of pretty absolute. And I'm just going to say that actually I'm going to do what I just did on the prior two amendments and pass until the end. And I just want to be clear that if I end up becoming the seventh and deciding vote because of that, I actually will support Councilman Herndon's amendment on this idea, because what few people know is that my own notes on at the marijuana meetings was that I support later hours, 11:00, but my constituents were very clear that that was a bridge too far. That said, you know, I don't mind taking a cautious approach to 9:00 if that's where six and six of my colleagues end up, because I still have a lot of question marks on the consumption side. We haven't formalized those rules yet. We haven't adopted them. And so, once again, it would if we did have that reduction in hours, knowing full well that there's my support for 10:00, other support for 10:00, it gives us that latitude to sort of expand, you know, again, but mostly after the consumption, we see how consumption plays itself out because to Councilman Cashman's comments, I'm not a believer in prohibition myself. So that's no. I just wanted to explain why, if that transpires, why I went from being essentially a no vote yes vote things. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Hearn, do you mind if we go to Councilman Gilmore?
Speaker 10: Absolutely, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Brooks. I so I've been talking with the community that I represent in the the portion of Montebello that I represent and Green Valley Ranch. And it was really interesting, you know, in talking with my community cabinet, asking them what their thoughts were. There were very few of them who were concerned with the opening hours. It was more the the, you know, how long folks would be able to be open. And, you know, we talked about the 10 p.m. of course, we talked about the midnight. And it was a consensus that 10 p.m. made good sense just for for their feelings and where they thought it could go. And it did come up around having areas that are activated later into the evening. I Councilman Herndon, you know, drive home on Nome Street right by the post office. And so I drive by a cultivation and a retail and medical site right there. And it's really dark at 830 when I'm driving home and having a place activated longer. Hopefully would make it safer and impact that gray market. Impact folks trying to access marijuana illegally versus doing so legally. And then we get the tax revenue as a city for it. And so that was a big conversation with the group of community members that I engaged and I share. Councilman Cashman's sediments I'm I was really surprised about the the lack of outcry from either side about the hours of operation. And I do share councilman Herndon's want to have more community engagement with the businesses. And I have to say my first experience with a retail or a medical site along Tower Road, they agreed to every single component of a good neighbor agreement that we brought forward and we engage the community. And so I think there are some really good examples out there of businesses who are trying to operate as a business and that where we're treating them as a business, allowing them to set their their opening time. Makes it easier to manage personnel. I think there's a lot of logical reasons for it. And so, you know, I was under the assumption, Councilman, that you were going to do a 10 p.m. to 10 p.m. I think we were all surprised that that it was 9 p.m. to 9 p.m.. And I guess I just need to ask if you would be. Willing or interested to look an amendment that would possibly be. 9 a.m. to. 10 p.m.. To to open that up for folks so that these areas, especially in the industrial side of the Montebello community, are truly activated later in the evening so that those businesses aren't targets after hours for folks trying to break into. And then also addressing that gray market piece. So I just respectfully ask if you might consider that and then would love to partner with you more as these licenses in Montebello come up for renewal that we're really looking at, asking these businesses to consider good neighbor agreements going forward so that truly the communities voice in Montebello can be heard through the Good Neighbor Agreement and that they really have some teeth within those licenses to make sure that folks are acting within compliance for this. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. And Councilwoman Kim, I really appreciate your comments. And this is this is the challenge that we have, Mr. President, because the idea of a ship wasn't even brought up in committee. There wasn't even a time to have the conversation, because if we simply said, well, there's an idea for a shift or even consider Councilwoman Ortega's for one one committee meeting to talk about it, we could have done that. Now, I am certainly my my purpose in this amendment is to ensure that the community has felt heard in this. And then 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. to me does not say that simply because the industry comes with midnight and we say ten doesn't mean the community has had a voice in that. And it's interesting, I my offices in my bell and my churches in Mount Belo, I mean, my bell, my staff, we volunteer at the Boys and Girls Club. So we haven't just been talking about marijuana this year when the hours conversations come up. We've been talking marijuana since it since it was passed. And what we have done is we have put this in targeted communities and a target the community that I represent. And it's interesting that we hear the conversation about we're not restricting, we're not doing that. Whether you support this amendment or the next one, there are additional hours. I would absolutely entertain a 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. But at the same point, we I don't want to do that if I just know where I don't want to waste more councilmembers time because we haven't heard from everybody. So it would be great if we could say this gets pushed back to June or July, but it doesn't seem as if the sponsor of that is willing to do that. So I would certainly make an amendment, Mr. President, to 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. I don't believe that will get me there. And as I I know, Councilman Espinosa, because we had originally said ten and I was trying to find a way to strike a balance. But I'm I'm happy to do that. But I want to be respectful of people's time as well. So I'm kind of torn. It would be nice if we could just simply say we'll postpone final and final consideration for a month so that we could have a conversation. I know this is we are having a marijuana committee meeting May 1st. I know Councilman Flynn is bringing something forward. So would there be a huge harm in having that conversation? I will I will look towards Councilman Black to see if that would be something she would reconsider.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: I. I don't think we should postpone it. I you did bring up that shift in hours several times at at meetings. And I know you've talked to everyone about it. And again, I don't think any of us have heard from the community that they would like them to open later. That hasn't been an issue. I feel like I responded to people's requests to hear from different groups. Thank you, Councilman Cashman, for acknowledging that. I asked. People want to hear from the opposition. I asked what opposition you wanted to hear from, and I brought those people to the meeting. We've heard from community members that in our neighborhood cooperation supported 10 p.m.. Margie Valdez has spoken four times. Gabriela Viso, community representative, has spoken. We did not hear that outpouring of opposition as we did in last year's conversation we had about locations and licenses. I think we should move forward tonight and we can continue the conversation. We do have meetings scheduled for the next few months, but we can switch them around and, you know, have new conversations and and amend this bill down the road.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black Espinosa, I see you in, but I'm not going to go. Councilman. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 10: Yes, Mr. President. If Councilman Black is is not going to allow that, may I amend my amendment to go from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. and we'll just vote on that? Is that with your.
Speaker 7: Yup. Your second increase?
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 10: I'm happy to reread it. Mr. Broadwell. Fine.
Speaker 0: Councilman. Mr. Braswell He just needs a reread and we can we can amend right now on the floor his prior amendment.
Speaker 10: Okay. So I wrote this down. I'll make sure that I get this right. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 17 0324 in the Pauline following particulars on page one lines 19 through 20, delete 8 a.m. and substitute with 9 a.m. and then on page one, line 28, delete 8 a.m. and substitute 9 a.m.. So I'm just changing the start time, 9 a.m. and a no need to state the reasons why again.
Speaker 0: Okay, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: Do we have a second? Just. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Hee. He. We got a second from Ortega. So this is comments and questions.
Speaker 6: Okay. I want to just reiterate, first of all, I think Castle Gilmore for understanding to the activation streets is something that it was is important to Colfax, too. But I just want to say that making legislation like this on the fly is disconcerting. It isn't deliberate. It doesn't provide enough time to weigh all the considerations. It's much more vulnerable to unintended consequences. And it seems irresponsible that we're having back and forth because this one isn't going to work and a vote we're going to change it. Right now, we haven't had any input on the change of the beginning hours of these businesses. And we we don't have really a good process for asking what this means. And I'm not sure that opening hours are going to have any effect whatsoever on the good or bad behavior of a of a marijuana store. I can't imagine what the effect is. So I'm just very disconcerted that we're doing legislation on the fly.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Woman Sussman. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 10: Mr. Fred, I was going to say, then let's postpone. If we're concerned about this, I'm not sure why the May 1st aid is such a such a concrete date. There are conversations that haven't been had a month I don't believe would make a difference. But if that's our argument about we're rushing on the fly, then let's bring it back to committee and have a conversation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: The decision to make it 10:00 was not made on the fly. What I'm saying is the change that is being requested is one that is being made on the fly. But the one to help to keep it open at ten was part of several committee meetings and several public comment periods and several input from neighborhoods.
Speaker 0: Okay. This has been moved in, seconded the last motion that Councilman Herndon read. And we are voting on that motion to amend. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Is this the 9 to 10? I just want to make sure I got it right. All right. Name two. Okay.
Speaker 10: Herndon High.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 1: Black? No.
Speaker 5: Clark, no.
Speaker 1: Espinosa, I. Flynn.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. Herndon's motion to amend Council Bill 324 fails. Councilman Hurt.
Speaker 1: Councilman. Councilwoman Arteaga didn't vote in the system.
Speaker 7: Sorry.
Speaker 0: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. President. I have an amendment. It's let's let's deal with this issue right now, Madam Secretary. The bill dies six. The amendment dies six. Seven, correct?
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct. Okay.
Speaker 0: The motion fails before we ask for a motion to pass this amendment. We have an amendment amendment on the floor by Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Espinosa. You're going to have to read it, but you need a second.
Speaker 6: You just made of.
Speaker 0: You sound okay. Let me make my amendment first. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 17 03430324 and the following particulars on page one line 30 delete May 1st in substitute June 21st. So. So it's okay. So sorry. It's been moved on often, Councilman Ortega. Okay. It's been moved by Councilman Espinosa. Signature by Councilmember Tiger. And essentially we are delaying the bill. Is that correct? Make a motion. Yeah, that's correct. I think there's merit to the disciplinary action amendment that should be sort of metered out and moving to the longest day for longer hours. And things make sense. And it gets around the notion that we are doing legislation on the fly. Okay. David.
Speaker 3: One quick technicality here as you continue to debate this amendment. Listen carefully. If this amendment is adopted, you will not be able to act on final adoption of the bill tonight. You will have to postpone final adoption of the bill till next week because the published description indicated that it was going to have a May 1st effective date based upon the amendment that occurred last week. Right. So so whenever a floor amendment changes something in the description, it requires it to be republished. So you'll have a combination of delaying the adoption of the bill and delaying the effective date. If you approve the amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Does it matter that they picked a Wednesday date, June 21st? Is that.
Speaker 3: So what's the question.
Speaker 0: Now is when it goes in effect.
Speaker 1: It's May 1st as a monday and June 21st as a Wednesday. It matter.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I'm sorry. I understood the motion to be to delay the effective date of the bill, not the final adoption of the bill. The effective date to replace the current one in the bill, which is May 1st.
Speaker 0: So it could be it can be effective 1a1 can be.
Speaker 3: Effective any day.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we're going to get this going. Thank you for the rationale. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: I am confused about what is being amended and what Bill is on the floor. Can somebody please tell me, is the amendment only about the effective date or is do do we have the original one on the floor to push it forward that is an amended.
Speaker 0: It after this. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Amended because the amendments.
Speaker 0: Lost we had yeah. The amendments tonight the three amendments tonight lost. Right. We amended the bill last week. So it's actually council bill 3 to 4 as amended.
Speaker 6: Oh I see.
Speaker 0: Last week. Yes, it's on the floor but we.
Speaker 6: Now have another amendment on the fly to change the effective date.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Um. Yeah. So have Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: I just think this is not a good way to run a legislative action or body.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, is there any other comments? Okay. Uh. It's been moved in second it and this is.
Speaker 1: There since there needs to be a.
Speaker 0: There's a second from Ortega.
Speaker 1: Okay. I'll put it in. No, it's not in there.
Speaker 0: Right. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um. Oh. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to ask Councilman Espinosa the the purpose of the delay is to take it back to committee and to do. To debate what?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I think that would then come unfortunately next week is to then push this back to committee so that we can discuss essentially the amendments that are that have traction or potentially have traction, particularly the disciplinary action legislation meaning amendment currently. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. You know, I'll just say that Councilman Cashman said when we were in March, when we looked at the hours of operation, he said, you know what, we need to get the proponents in here and the opponents to our extension. And when he did that, we waited, I believe it was two weeks. I believe you wait two weeks and get the information out. I know I talked to my constituents, particularly the ones who are most sensitive to this, and the response was pretty underwhelming. Matter of fact, the people we got to speak were individuals who didn't even who were opponents, who didn't even live in the city and county of Denver. And so I feel as if we are beginning to waste a little time. There's nothing we're going to accomplish by going back to. The committee to have a discussion on 30 minutes here or an hour there. So this is just my rationale to say let's, you know, move to oppose this motion, move this bill forward. And if there are real concerns and disciplinary issues, which I believe that there are, let's deal with them in committee and ask the chairperson to schedule them. That's that's just my rationale. Okay. Now, we got a lot more people in here. Okay. Let's go with. Sussman You already got in. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of comments. I neglected to mention that we also heard from Sabeco said several meetings, which is another community organization. In regarding the disciplinary issues, I would be more than happy to have XYZ and licensed come to a committee meeting and and educate us on these show cause hearings they have and as Councilman Brooks said, if we need to then further amend this to address that, we can certainly do that. But they already have a process in place and businesses can have their licenses revoked. They currently have that that process in place. But I'm happy to schedule a conversation about that at a committee meeting.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Black Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Look, I am in our deliberations tonight. I think it. I think it's absolutely fair to have these questions answered. And, you know, I see folks in the dining room in the night. I see folks in the council chambers regularly who have a bill up. And I'm looking at them. I'm like, you know, your bill is not controversial. You know, nobody's going to ask. I mean, I love how dedicated there are, but I'm like, nobody's going to call your bill out. And it's just pretty small and pretty solid. But they're there anyway. They're there just in case there are questions. And I you know, I know that. I know I don't want this to be an attack on exercise and license. I'm sure that if they knew how much we were talking about them, they'd show up lickety split. I don't think that memo got to them. And but I also don't think. We should wait another month or two months, I think. Look, I know we've deliberated in committee. I know we've deliberated here. And I. Absolutely. Just for the record, and I with all due respect, this is how every ounce of legislative legislation is sausage making . And it can happen here or it can happen in committee. I've seen bills amended on the floor and they've ended up. Good pieces of legislation. I've seen a couple of my colleagues down here do it and they do it well. It's just. It's what we do. It's our job. It's in our job description. And it is a power and a right that we have. So I don't want us to to knock the process. I think we have that that that power. And through charter and through our rules. Let me just be clear about that. But I also look I support looking into the hours I. Look, I'm. I'm down for compromise. I'm down to see a. A tinker to a bill. To a regulation. Basically a regulatory framework that is solid. People are watching Denver as we legislate. There are cities who haven't got there and we're in the microscope. On the good in a good way. And I want us to do this the right way. Now, do I believe that 2 hours would make a big impact? I think it depends on the end. We've heard numbers, and I really appreciate the the homework and everything that was done to really show that a majority of that business is at night or in the evenings. I believe that. However, I think I don't think we need to delay another two months. I think we can. I would love to get answers in between now and next week. I would love to see movement on that. I think I didn't go two weeks, but a month is two months is. It's kind of far out there. So no disrespect to anybody that said anything. I just think it's a long way to go. It just was just one. I mean, for just a few questions that I think could be answered.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I'll just say that, you know, whoever is proposing a bill, this is this is a city council sponsored bill, and it's incumbent upon them to make sure everyone is here. This is our bill. This is not an executive office bill. And so while some folks show up, sometimes we've got to make sure for our bills that we have somebody here for further explanation.
Speaker 5: Did we I'm sorry. Did we? Was there communication sent for access and license to be here tonight?
Speaker 0: I think you're going to have to ask the bill proposers. The amendment proposal is in the bill proposal.
Speaker 5: Because it would say something if there was communication. There's nobody here. That's a big deal. That's that's a that's a no no. Yeah. But if there. We just didn't reach out then. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let's see here. Councilman Herndon, I.
Speaker 10: Think, Mr. President, as I said again when I was trying to the purpose for my amendment, it was because I don't believe that the community has had a voice in this. And I know I know people will disagree with that. And I'm not one to debate that. But if we can have a mechanism in place, because up until this point, because I asked the question, give me a good neighborhood agreement in my district. Out of all the dispensaries that I have in Montebello, Northpark Hill, East Colfax, give me one. And they couldn't. Don't tell me that you're a good community steward. It's not as if I'm not Glendale, where I've got one or Edgewater with six. Give me one example. So in my eyes, the industry has not been a good steward, so I would be okay delaying this so that we can have a conversation about why this industry hasn't engaged these saturated communities. And what can we as a council do to ensure that they do that? I would be fine with that. And I think that that's I don't think that that's such a difficult ask to make sure that the community, the saturated communities, because we didn't say to the industry, you could go anywhere . We said you could go to these particular neighborhoods. And so these particular neighborhoods have been grossly impacted. And how do we make sure that they feel heard? And I'm I would love for Councilwoman Gilmore to come to committee and use the tools that she that utilized that worked in Green Valley ranch because I would love for that to happen and part of my district. So I am comfortable with the delay for that very reason because if people ask the question, what can we talk about? How about we talk about finding ways to ensure that the industry engages the community that they're impacting? Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman. No.
Speaker 5: Real quick. Just clarification. What we're talking about is delay in the bill to delay in the bill, and that doesn't affect bringing back amendments to address the disciplinary action that we need to do. That doesn't affect that at all. We can still bring back amendments later on to do that, whether we change that, the delay, the implementation date or not. Is that correct.
Speaker 0: Councilman? I think, you know, generally you can bring an amendment back to any bill that we have, what Councilman Ortega intends, what I'm taking out. Let me take yours out of your mouth. But I believe she was saying that if this passes today, we can't react retroactively, go back and adjust those times for those applications with disciplinary issues.
Speaker 5: Well well, I think that I was thinking that the time was a separate issue from the district reaction to issues. So, I mean, okay, you know, I was thinking that the primary concern tonight was the hours. That's right. So if you vote on that, then we can still bring back amendments to address the important issues that she addressed the disciplinary action. That's right. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. An additional clarification. The motion is to change the effective date of the new hours. Is that correct? To June 21st instead of May 1st. But there is not a motion to postpone final consideration. So this would come up again on final next Monday. That doesn't give this time to come back to committee because we don't have a marijuana committee. We have one next week. So we would have to have an extensive discussion right before this meeting next week and we'd have to have all the data by then. I just wanted to remind folks of that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, sir. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah. Yeah, I would I would think that if for some reason this this motion passes, I think we would immediately follow up with a motion to postpone that vote on final consideration, sir. All right. The I'm going to start calling these motions and amendments by everyone's last name. So the Espinosa Amendment are motion on the floor to postpone to an effective date of June 24th has been moved and seconded. But I'm secretary roll call.
Speaker 1: 21/21.
Speaker 0: What I say June 21st. June 21st is what it meant.
Speaker 1: Espinosa Hi. Flynn No. Gilmore No. Herndon.
Speaker 3: Cashman, no.
Speaker 6: Canet.
Speaker 1: Lopez No new? No. Ortega.
Speaker 6: Susman No.
Speaker 1: Clark, no. Clark, no. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. Please call the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: Make sure you remember it.
Speaker 0: I think we got him. Got it.
Speaker 1: All three eyes. Ten nays.
Speaker 0: Three eyes, tin nays. The Espinosa Amendment to postpone to the 21st June 21st has failed. Councilman Herndon will need a motion to pass. Council Bill 324 as amended.
Speaker 10: Mr. President, I, I did do that initially, a long time ago. And since there were no amendments to that, it should just still be. It's still on the floor. Correct, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 1: Yes, we can do that. Yes.
Speaker 0: So, Madam Secretary, can we just vote on Council Bill 324 as amendment?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded. But I'm sick.
Speaker 6: As amended.
Speaker 0: We have a.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 0: We have to comments. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 10: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I will. I will. I will not be supporting this bill. And as Councilwoman Ortega said eloquently last week, the industry had been very successful in Denver. And the comments that people have said imply that by proposing an amendment that you were anti industry, that's actually not the case at all. I'm just if I have to prove if I have to side with an anti or a pro, I just say it is pro community. And as we have had these conversations, I once again stress that I don't believe the industry has been as good of a steward as they could be. And I recognize that there are certainly good players. I don't want to blanket it. But once again, where are the good neighborhood agreements? Where are the ways that we are helping communities feel feel good about? And that's probably a bad way to say it. But from what I've heard in my district, they have been adversely impacted and I have not seen how the industry is trying to help mitigate that. And if the industry wants to be, I think they have the ability to do much more than they're doing right now and I would like to see that. And so currently, I cannot support the bill that is written. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. I may blow a few minds here, but as Councilwoman Black knows, ever since we've gone from midnight to 10:00, I have been in support of this bill as it is. And so I just wanted to to to let everyone know that I will be voting in favor despite everything that has transpired tonight . But the beauty the beauty of this body and the reason why I respect the different and Meredith points of view that have resulted in other amendments is because they have the potential to improve the legislation. So we heard that there might be more time, which was why I offered the amendment that I did. I have no fear of that. I mean, the fact that we picked May 1st is just because that's when we decided to conclude it. So but that said, I've always been in favor of the 10 hours extension to 10:00, so I will be voting in favor of things. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. No one is surprised. Okay. Let's see. I'm sorry, because our machine is not getting an order. Councilwoman Black was next.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. So I had some comments for tonight, and now they really don't apply after this lively discussion, but they kind of do. So last week, Councilman Brooks had a great little speech about policy versus politics. And if it was just about policy, I think we would align with the state laws. And so, you know, our state allows for marijuana stores to stay open till midnight. So when people say it's the industry pushing it, well, that's actually our state law, but it is politics and we are all up here. The funny thing is, as I've written down all the comments people have said, because I want to bring all of these topics to our committee meeting, I would love to have a meeting on community engagement, Councilman Herndon and good neighbor agreements and have a conversation with how these businesses can be better neighbors. Love to have a conversation about disciplinary action and show cause hearings. Councilwoman Ortega I do have a meeting scheduled on THC. But the funny thing is, with the exception of maybe Councilman Herndon, no one is actually opposed to 10 p.m. so despite all of this conversation we've had, none of it has actually been about 10 p.m.. So I'm I'm pleased with the 10 p.m.. It was a compromise. The bill had originally started with midnight. We did have three two hour meetings and we had three public comments and a hearing last week. I responded to the requests that everyone made and I think everyone for their time and their interest. I think excise and licenses, I think the police for their time all of them, any community members who participated I NC and people in the industry. I'm really proud of the dialog we all had and the compromise compromise we made. And I will be supporting the bill tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, I know that we've been we've been at this for a while. You know, I think the 10 p.m. was a good compromise. It is baby steps. And, you know, that's what's really worked in Denver as we take the time to really to really think things through. Right. And in part, because of the heartache that we have and that we still got work to do and we do. There are a lot of tinkering. There's a lot of tinkering that we have to do with with regulation of marijuana. There just is. You know, I had an interview. I had a guy who interviewed me and we were first regulating it. He's from Sweden. I mean, we had Germany, Latin America, Sweden. The one topic I mean, I stand for a lot of things, a lot of my favorite policies and issues that I like. And the one thing they all want to talk to me about and answer the phone is like, I know we want to talk about we. My damn. Can you? There are other cool things going on. We want to talk about marijuana regulation. So I take the call. Don't have to. It's not my committee, but I take the call and defend our policies whether I voted for them or not. Because all in all, it's the right way to move forward. And here's the thing. I don't the one thing that really turned me in is I'm very and paying attention to it is criminal activity. As we operate and as we regulate. You know, I always walked in very skeptical and I as I should be, I'm from the west side and we have more liquor stores and you can shake a stick. And we have a lot of problematic liquor stores. We have a overabundance of access to things like this. Right. You won't find a Whole Foods or a cute Trader Joe's or anything like that, even though I've asked people to come and say, Hey, come on, once you kind of take a look at some of these spots out on the West Side, we don't have those other uses. You know, I love The Green Mile on Broadway because there's other uses. You know, saturation is different there than it is in in parts of my district. And so we really have to look at things in its entirety. And it absolutely is. You look at home values, you look at sidewalks, you look at everything else in some of these other either complete or. They're more complete. You have other choices and it's access. So I wanted to make I want to make sure that any impact that we have doesn't impact that in a in a horrible way or in a negative way. And when I pay attention to crime and I paint it to crime stats, lo and behold. There's really nothing going around around these dispensaries in comparison to some of these other uses. It's not that we shouldn't keep our eye off the ball. But at least that's one less worry I have, and I've been happy to be able to say, okay, let's move to 10:00. And so I do support this bill. I think this is something that would help the industry, help customer base. And it really does make sense. It really does make sense. I think the black market doesn't kick in at eight in the morning, especially marijuana. Very many people are up around that time. But it is the after hours, right? I was supposed to be fired anyway, but I support the bill moving forward. Good work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I think we're past funny now. Okay. Let's go to Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Brooks. So essentially right now, we're talking about a difference of eight versus 9 a.m.. And so with that morning hours difference, I will be voting in favor of the bill as amended. But I think that authentic community engagement is so important, instead of just providing maybe $1,000 contribution to a community event or putting a monetary donation forward versus really engaging with the surrounding community and asking, how can we be a better neighbor? I was one of the co-founders of a registered neighborhood organization when our mayor was our city councilperson below 2020 and never had any marijuana industry. Folks reaching out to us, asking to come, asking to find out when the meetings were, how they could get involved. And, you know, so so that just has not really existed in communities of color, honestly. And so I look forward to at upcoming committee meetings having the conversation about really how does the Boys and Girls Club in the Montebello community have our young people sharing with the marijuana industry? How have you impacted their lives? Have you impacted their family's lives? How can you be a better neighbor? How can you be authentic in your community engagement? And that it's not just necessarily a check, but it's really being there and being accessible. And so, you know, upon renewal, educating the community to request a hearing and I wanted to throw out for those who are listening to this debate tonight, this is a microcosm of our community. It's a microcosm of Denver. And I'm glad that it wasn't just a rubber stamp. We all got it through. And there it is because it's messy and I'm glad that this is messy. And so I want to throw out to folks who are listening that the inner neighborhood cooperation, the ANC, they're going to host Denver's first Marijuana Citizens Academy, and it's May 8th and May 22nd. And I'm not quite sure how we can get this information out, but if all of us as council folks, would would agree to share it to our constituents, because it's a complex topic. And the more that we can educate our community around how their voices can be heard, I think it just makes our neighborhoods and our constituents that much stronger because they know how the system works. And so I just wanted to share share those thoughts and thank you.
Speaker 0: President Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. This bill is dealing with expanded hours, which, in light of the data for the cities that surround us that allow marijuana sales, makes sense. This is a move for the customers, for the clientele of the marijuana stores. And to use this as a vehicle to try to address other legitimate I underline legitimate concerns that councilmembers Ortega and Herndon have raised. I think this is just the wrong vehicle to to try to attach. Other issues to this. I would like to see them come to the marijuana committee and just meet them head on. For instance, we have last year we amended the retail marijuana code to require community engagement plans not only for new licenses, but for renewals. And if that's not being done, then that's a problem we need to address in committee. Is that being done? And, Councilwoman Black, I like to see that addressed in the committee. I don't see the same provision in the medical code, but when a medical center comes up for renewal, should they also be submitting a community engagement plan ? They do that on renewal, not just on new applications. I would, but as far as extending the hours of the 13 jurisdictions around us that have medical or recreational sales, actually 12 excluding us. 11 of them, 11 of those 12 have closing times after our 7:00. So I think it only makes sense to deal with this in isolation and then directly attack those other issues head on in our committee. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. We have no more comments for this bill. And I think it's a I think it is important to to say and someone did say, but I want to underline it again, the state has approved hours of operation to midnight. And so I don't know many. Businesses or organizations where the state grants a privilege. And we come and tinker with it. And so with this bill, we did, and not with a lot of great evidence either. But, you know, folks felt like there was a compromise on the 10 p.m.. So we went to that support. But I got to tell you, I mean, my issues in District nine are around liquor stores. They're around liquor stores that do not have any security. So we can go and handle that if we'd like to. Can I go to your committee, too? And I especially do not like lines of people at A.T.M. in my liquor stores. So that's why from the beginning, I've been supportive of the of whatever the state requirement was. And the people in my community know that because that's a just a policy consideration for me. That being said, the will of this council is 10 p.m. and see, you know, support the city and and I'm glad to support it. Ten. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black Eye.
Speaker 1: Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Herndon. No. Cashman. Hi. Kennedy. Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 1: Sussman. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please. Cause of our income. The results.
Speaker 1: Lebanese. Two days.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, two nays. Council Bill 324 as amended passes. This concludes all items to be called out. All other bills for introduction of order published were now ready for the Bloc votes on resolutions and bills and final consideration countermeasures. Remember, this is your last opportunity for consent or block vote and will need to vote I. Otherwise, it's your last chance for a separate vote. Councilman Herndon, where you put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on a final consideration for final passage on the floor.
Speaker 10: Yes, Mr. President, I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. I believe all of these are series of 2017 395 341 364 383 384 390 3405471 ten 381.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved in saying it.
Speaker 1: Did you say 349 for second one?
Speaker 0: Did I say I think you did.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Did you?
Speaker 10: I thought I read them. Spread on scrolling back up. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah, he said it. Okay. He said, all right. It's the second, second term. My recall.
Speaker 1: Black. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I feel more. I've heard in Cashman I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman I. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Please Kosovo renounce results 1212 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be required public hearing. Yes, we have a public hearing tonight on Council Bill 311 proven text amendment for the Denver Zoning Code comprised of multiple substantive clarifications of usability changes across the entire entirety
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending sections 6-206 and 24-508, Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding the hours of operation of retail marijuana stores and medical marijuana centers.
Allows licensed marijuana stores to remain open until 10:00 pm. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-3-17. Amended 4-17-17 to clearly communicate to the public and to the marijuana industry the first date upon which any retail marijuana store or medical marijuana center may remain open until 10:00 p.m. will be Monday, May 1.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04172017_17-0263
|
Speaker 0: Speakers will have 3 minutes and there will be no yielding of times. The important distinction there on the presentation monitor of the wall, you will see your time counting down speakers. We'll stay on the topic of hearing and must director comments to council members please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain for individual or personal attacks. Kelso. I knew. Would you please put Councilor Bell to 63 on the floor?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 263 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved the second it the public hearing for council bill 263 is open. May we have the staff report? Teresa Lucero, how are you?
Speaker 3: I'm good. How are you?
Speaker 0: Great.
Speaker 3: Teresa with Sarah with community planning and development. So this is a proposed map Amendment 433, East First Avenue. The proposal is to rezone from PWD 55 to Urban Center Cherry Creek North eighth story. Oops, I didn't hit the right button. So the location is in the Council District ten in the Cherry Creek neighborhood between First Avenue and Second Avenue, between Saint Paul and Milwaukee in Cherry Creek, north, directly across from the Cherry Creek Shopping Center. Property is about two acres. It is an existing office building with mixed use parking structure. The request is to prepare the property for future redevelopment, so to rezone to that urban center. Cherry Creek North eight story. This is of a former Chapter 59 PD that was approved in 1981. It limits the amount of square feet in the on the property and limits the uses to office retail and parking and has a height limit of 126 feet. The Cherry Creek Zone districts were adopted in 2014 as part of the Urban Urban Center context, specifically intended for use in Cherry Creek North and were designed to be specifically in character with that area of the city. Again, PD, 55, is a former Chapter 59 zone district. There is a height limit on the property, a view plane, Cranmer Park view plane that limits the height on the property to 164 feet. Existing land uses office and retail. Eight story buildings existing on the property. Surrounding zoning. Cherry Creek North eight to the north to the south. B three Chapter 59 Zone District for the shopping center itself to the East Cherry Creek North five and 12, and then to the west. Another Chapter 59 PD. So when you look at the land use in the area, it is retail and office and commercial. So surrounding totally surrounding this block. These pictures give you an idea of the scale of the development in the area. The building itself is the center on top, and then on each side of the building, you see we have pretty tall buildings, up to eight storeys and. Specifically to the east and west. So the process informational notice on this went out in November of 2016. Planning Board held their hearing on in February of 2017 and unanimously recommended approval of this. And then we were at committee on March 7th. And of course, we're here tonight. There are seven different RINO's that were notified of this hearing. We did hear from the Cherry Creek Area Business Alliance a letter of support for this application. You know the criteria. Well, consistency with adopted plans, the plans that are applicable here are the current plan blueprint Denver and the Cherry Creek Area Plan, which was adopted in 2012. Current plan tells us to conserve land by promoting infill development. Encourage quality infill development. Identify areas where increased density can be accommodated. And specifically to Cherry Creek and the shopping center to. It should be our premier shopping area as it is and should be the destination for the entire Rocky Mountain area. Blueprint Denver The land use concept is regional center balancing retail employment. Residential uses attractive to patrons from the region and of course that major shopping center being the core of the area and it is an area of change. Street classifications for first Avenue mixed use arterial and an enhanced transit corridor Second Avenue, Main Street Collector and Milwaukee and Saint Paul are both on designated local streets. And there are details in your staff report about the implications of those. Cherry Creek Area plan, like I said, adopted in 2012, acknowledging that Cherry Creek needs to change and stay prosperous and must grow to change and stay prosperous that they did. Update the Blueprint Denver map, which I'll show you in just a second. And they recommended modifying our zoning regulations, which we did in 2014 with these new Cherry Creek North Zone districts. This is a picture of the area of change map that and how it changed from Blueprint Denver to the adoption of the Cherry Creek Area Plan. The block that we're talking about did remain in an area of change. Cherry Creek also has some areas when in the plan. So this is a regional center in the Cherry Creek Area plan, which is basically talks about supporting mixed use and enhanced public realm. The scale of the buildings should be between four and 12 stories and we should enact the zoning regulations that we did in 2014 to encourage the continuing redevelopment of Cherry Creek of the Cherry Creek area. So the property we're talking about is in the Cherry Creek Shopping District, same area. And it is designated a regional center in the sum in the plan. And the plan does say this this park in particular, should be stories. So with that, staff believes that this proposed MAP amendment does conform with our adopted plans, that we're furthering the public health, safety and welfare by allowing Cherry Creek to redevelop and reinvest in itself and by implementing our plans justifying circumstances. It's changed conditions that the land or surrounding environs has changed or is changing to a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage redevelopment. I think it's easy to see where Cherry Creek has continued to reinvest in itself. It's a regional center. It's an area of change. We've designated that in the most recent plan. There is ongoing redevelopment all over the Cherry Creek neighborhood, so staff believes this is the appropriate justifying circumstance for a map amendment. And so the last thing is consistency with the neighborhood context and zone district, purpose and intent. The urban center and neighborhood context sort of speaks Cherry Creek's it's multi-unit residential mixed use commercial located located on Main Streets and mixed use arterials building heights moderate to high and the CN8 zoned district itself was written for Cherry Creek North to promote that mixed use shopping area pedestrian oriented development. So staff believes that this criteria is also met by the rezoning and staff recommends approval.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Teresa. We have two speakers this evening. I'm going to call them both up. Bob Martucci. And Blake Murray. Sorry for mispronouncing your last name.
Speaker 1: My name? My name is Bob Bertucci, and I'm the executive vice president of Realty Management Group. And I manage the this block and the block to the west of US Filmore place. And the reason we're here tonight is to rezone this property. But I wanted to say that it's really a reinvestment in our property driven by reducing our energy footprint of our building. So in regards to your proclamation today, we're actually making investments to do exactly that, which is to reduce the amount of energy we use in our buildings and to improve the overall performance and how we're doing that. The catalyst for this building was to replace all of the glass in the building. Yes.
Speaker 4: Excuse me.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. Can you have a seat, please? No, we are going to.
Speaker 4: Fine.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. Excuse me. You're interrupting. You're interrupting.
Speaker 4: You are. We are.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we have public comment. Once a month, you can come here and have and have a conversation. Why? Okay.
Speaker 4: So wait a minute. So here you are, a politician with 20,196.
Speaker 0: You can. You can leave them right there.
Speaker 4: Which you took.
Speaker 5: And they immediately said.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 4: There's that one. A petition with 25,695 signatures on it.
Speaker 0: Got it. Thank you.
Speaker 4: 602 from Denver. If you don't want to.
Speaker 0: Go with her, we can do that. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Felix.
Speaker 0: Have a great night. Goodbye and shame. So, Ms.. Mr. Martucci, I apologize. I apologize for interrupting.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 0: There. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 4: It is interesting.
Speaker 0: You have it's great. You have 2 minutes.
Speaker 4: Of your time. Support the staff so you can call the president of your state to cover themselves. You have been busy.
Speaker 0: Scuse me. We have. We. We have. We have your petitions. If you could please leave. That'd be great. I now this. Okay.
Speaker 4: Please.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Keep on fighting their way more than you have any of these issues. That's a very conservative trend to address.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Anyway, our catalyst was that these buildings were built in 1982 for a period of time where energy was cheap and there weren't considerations about pollution and contamination of our glass. Probably let's more heat in in the summer than it lets out in the wintertime. It's very inefficient. So we're replacing all the glass in the building, all the seals we've replaced, the boilers, we've put all LED lighting in the building in the first phase and we're re cladding the entire building. The second phase is to redo our parking garage to remove our old boilers chillers. All of those things put in heat pumps and to improve our energy efficiency along with our are architectural renovations of the building. So we believe that we want to reinvest in our properties. We want to keep them modern, efficient and well received by the community. So we appreciate you taking the time to look at our our approval process to rezone our building. And we would hope that you would do that. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Martucci. Blake Maurer said better.
Speaker 1: That's not bad. I'm Blake Mauer.
Speaker 0: Mauer.
Speaker 1: I'm the architect here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mauer. All right. Questions for members of council. All right, CNN. We're going to the comment section. Councilman, no.
Speaker 2: All right. Well, we're really proud of all that velvet's going on. And you're a great guy. We just got to live through it for the next two years. But this is going to be just spectacular, which is complete. And Marvin Tucci is a great business leader. His boss, Nordstrom, great business leader, Cherry Creek, and are doing a great job helping revitalize and and upgrade. Cherry Creek is going to be a gorgeous site when it's finished. So we're looking forward to seeing Bob's Hibachi will be the first building that really all will be complete on that east side of Cherry Creek and will be a sort of a good model for all the buildings that are coming. So is I think I said to my councilman, we had about 12 projects completed since 2013 and we've got actually 12 projects underway in Cherry Creek right now. So it's quite a change for Cherry Creek and is going to be something in the next two years. When we did the zoning process. Bob was one of our community leaders that helped with the zoning process and the planning process, and we predicted two and a half million square feet of new construction coming to Cherry Creek in the next ten years. So it's on the way right now, there's no question about that. So I'm really proud of the work that Bob does and what's this building is going to do. This is an opioid and it converting to the the standard zoning for Cherry Creek which is Cherry Creek each year agreed north A So I recommend approval for our colleagues and I think you'll be pleased when you see what's happening at your creek when we finish. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman knew I failed to mention that council bill 263 is closed. So sorry about that. Any other comments by members of council seeing? None. Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 5: New Ortega. Guy Sussman. Black. Clark. Espinosa Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Kinney. Lopez.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting, announce the results.
Speaker 5: Sorry. It's not taking all the votes. Here we go. 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: Yep. 12 eyes can smell. 263 has passed. Congratulations. Thank you. Councilman, who will you please put council bill 324 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3033 East 1st Avenue in Cherry Creek.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3033 East 1st Avenue from PUD #55 to C-CCN-8, planned unit development to Cherry Creek North zoning, in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-7-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04172017_17-0324
|
Speaker 0: Yep. 12 eyes can smell. 263 has passed. Congratulations. Thank you. Councilman, who will you please put council bill 324 on the floor?
Speaker 2: I will do. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll move the council. Bill 324 be order published as amended. Oh, just.
Speaker 5: I just ordered published.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Order published.
Speaker 2: Move the council bill 324 be order published.
Speaker 0: That's right. Sorry. It has been moved. No problem. It has been moved in second. Councilwoman Black, will you go ahead and offer your amendment, which will notify business owners when the change in hours would take place in the event this bill passes?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 324. Mr. Nutter, I moved the Council Bill 324 be amended in the following particulars on page one, line 28 at the following language. Section three. This ordinance shall be effective Monday, May 1st, 2017.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in. Second, it comments by members of Council. Councilman Black.
Speaker 6: According to the city charter, a newly adopted city ordinance is effective upon final publication unless a definite effective date is provided in the ordinance. Sometimes there is public confusion about when final publication of a bill actually occurs. The purpose of the amendment is to clearly communicate to the public and to the marijuana industry the first date upon which any retail marijuana store or medical marijuana center may remain open until 10 p.m. will be Monday, May 1st.
Speaker 0: Okay. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black eye. Clark Espinosa I. Gilmore Herndon Cashman can eat. Lopez All right. New Ortega. My assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I have already announced results.
Speaker 5: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes, Constable. 324 has been amended now. Councilman Ortega. Would you like to speak on your proposal that you want to offer in the next week?
Speaker 3: Yes, I would. And I am introducing it so that people can have the opportunity to speak to it tonight. Although it will formally be brought forward until next Monday. So basically what I am working on is in our city attorney will have some language to me this week that I will get out to all of you. So applications would automatically be approved to the new time of 10:00, except those that are awaiting a license, that have made an application to the city and awaiting demonstration, or to show them to demonstrate that they are in compliance. And in addition to that, those that are going through the show cause process, unless and until the application is granted in accordance with all applicable laws or the disciplinary action has been resolved. So it would be, again, the pending licenses and those that are going through the show cause process that would not be allowed to automatically extend their hours until they can demonstrate that they're in full compliance. So I will be bringing that forward on Monday night. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega and Councilman Hernan understand that you want to have a conversation about one that you're going to bring next week.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. And this should serve as no surprise to those because of the emails and phone calls that I've been getting. But the conversation has been solely about whether or not to increase marijuana hours. And as we started to look at the data about the current operating window that we have now, a majority of the dispensaries in the industry aren't even utilizing the full window of an 8 a.m. to a 7 p.m.. So I was considering a proposal to shift the hours so that would be more optimal and efficient where we'll increase the hours on the back end, but we'll also shift the hours on the front end. So that is a conversation that I've had with people within the industry as well as council colleagues, and I will consider bringing that forward in an amendment next week. It seemed more reasonable to discuss all the amendments at once versus one amendment today versus another amendment next Monday. So we'll have the opportunity to discuss multiple amendments next Monday. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Hernan and Councilwoman Ortega. The one hour courtesy public hearing for Councilman 324 is now open. May we have the staff report? Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a bill that will extend store hours to 10 p.m.. Currently, marijuana stores and medical centers close at 7 p.m., which was an arbitrary time and a holdover from old medical rules. State law allows them to be opened till midnight. The original bill proposed midnight, but after having three committee meetings since January three, public comment period. We'll have another hearing tonight. We heard from I.N.S. that recommended 10 p.m. the committee a compromise to 10 p.m.. So I was really pleased with all of the work that we did and to come up with that compromise. Many of our surrounding jurisdictions have later hours and they have not seen issues related to crime or neighborhood issues. We've heard from Edgewater and Aurora. Again, I'll say that this is a practical matter. We are not adding new locations. The stores are already open. This is about convenience. It might mean increased tax revenue for Denver. Later hours do not contribute to the black market or youth usage. Law abiding citizens of legal age patronize these stores. They are not kids. They are not drug dealers. In fact, by having our legal stores open, we are actually undercutting the black market, which is a good thing and which is one of the reasons many people voted to legalize marijuana. Additionally, open storefronts are a deterrent to crime. Businesses are broken into when businesses are closed, not when they're open. And lastly, a few months ago, the Denver Post editorial board recommended that the city council extend store hours. So I look forward to hearing the public comments. And please also feel free to comment on both Councilman Herndon and Councilwoman Ortega's proposed amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. We have ten people signed up tonight. To all of our surprise. And so I'm going to call the first five speakers up. I think you can come up to the first bitch and then we'll call the next five up. So I will call up John, Eduardo, etc. and use sort of. Hiney, Leslie. Rudolfo Gonzalez. Nick Lovullo. And Tiffany Goldman. Mr. of your first.
Speaker 1: First, I'd like to thank the council for letting me speak to you about this important issue. I'm here representing said we are saying we support the extension of the hours. We understand that every hour that there's a legal dispensary open is taking time away from the black market and dealers that are actually selling to underage people. We want them to disappear and we want it to be a perfectly legal, legal, regulated industry. And therefore, we support this. Also, one of the very important things to us, two other points is one of them is businesses should decide when they open and they closed, except obviously the 10:00 closing hours for everybody. So we would like to the 2 hours that they're talking about cutting it down the morning, it would allow access for people to work in the afternoons to go early in the morning. So we're opposed to any reduction on the hours from. We want it to be from 8 to 10 because that way people that work in the afternoon can go there in the morning and get their marijuana. And same thing to 10:00. People who work during the days can go and get there. And we believe it's very important for people to have that access. And we very much do believe that dispensaries eliminate the black market. And that's why we're in support of the hours.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Lesley.
Speaker 6: Good evening, council members. My name is Hanni Lasley and I'm one of the co-founders and the executive director of Smart, Colorado. As you all know, Smart Colorado formed after the passage of Amendment 64 in 2013 when we legalized and commercialized recreational marijuana for individuals over the age of 21, Smart has thousands of supporters across the state, including hundreds of citizens in Denver. We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that voted both for and against legalization. We formed when Public Health and Safety around Colorado, kids ranked last among our state policymakers. We've also worked closely with Denver City Council and Denver citizen groups. When Denver decided to opt in for commercialization. Our sole purpose is to protect kids from the unintended consequences of marijuana. Smart does not take any state or local tax revenues, and we receive donations from everyday citizens as well as private foundations. We'd first like to thank you for your willingness to examine the ordinance, for taking it down from midnight until 10:00. We do appreciate that very much, because our big concern about this ordinance is twofold. Number one, that it's being considered at the same time as the initiated ordinance 300. Rules and regulations are being rolled out. That is a very large policy shift for this city. And to add another one on top of it does not really allow us to properly vet the impact to our kids. So we would just like to thank you for your consideration around that. And also just the concern that we all know that additional accessibility in alcohol and tobacco do lend to greater youth use. And while we don't have the data yet around marijuana, this is a concern as we're the first to do it. And Denver is really the epicenter. So we'd like you to we first like to thank you again for your consideration on 10:00, but we would ask for your consideration to delay the implementation of this ordinance after we've had a chance to vet the impact of the initiated ordinance 300. And with that, I thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Leslie. Rodolfo Gonzalez. Okay. Nick Lovullo. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 7: Hello, Nicholas, from five points. Councilman Brooks Mayor. Representative, I will say that I'm pretty disappointed after all of these meetings since January and all the input from the city and the best to come out with a three hour extension. I don't know if you didn't look at the data that was presented. We've got law enforcement officers counting on one hand the number of marijuana crimes that have occurred in the last five years. I don't understand the source of that. I don't I'm not even sure how you would arrive at the conclusion that it's a prudent decision to shut off all of the legal avenues for marijuana purchases when the black market is at its most active after 10:00 at night when people are out. I think it's frankly reckless for you to not increase the extended, extended dispensary hours till midnight when we are going to have marijuana clubs and increased people, increased number of people and number of businesses that are offering places to consume. I don't understand how you think it's prudent. I don't think you can even escape that argument. So I would say over the last three months, it was a pretty lousy rally as far as these council committees were going. I would like to submit an amendment. Let me just skip to the end because I'm. I would like to submit an amendment that the dispensaries set their own hours within the timeframe already established by the state. And you guys don't have a say in it, and the state can do whatever it wants. And, you know, this is a battle we don't have to fight every single time. And every single time this comes up, there's always posturing. You know, we always you know, we want to shift the dispensary hours. All we want to, you know, eliminate the dispensaries that just complicate things. It's absurd, you know? And then, you know, the marijuana at the marijuana special committee, we got to hear from Smart Give Smart Colorado a platform at the first of all, they're not even the topic wasn't even germane. Second of all, the prisoner no offense. I mean, I don't know when she's sitting up here and waits in line like him, like me and voices her opinion. But she's not even one of your constituents. She's even live in Denver. I don't even know why that why they were given a platform. All these quotes in The Denver Post that you guys, you know. Well, prohibition doesn't work, but 12 midnight is a nonstarter. So prohibiting sales at 10:00 will work somehow. I'm not sure how that works. Dispensaries are bad neighbors. My residents say, well, I mean, who's poppin who's popping caps off in northeast Denver? Is it the dispensaries? The drive by shooting and the marijuana deal gone bad and sunny side that that that drive by shooting happened at 1145. Maybe if the dispensary was open at midnight, the guy wouldn't have shot up a house. He would have gone shot as a bartender. That'd be something. I mean, we'll never know. It's just at this point, after all of this deliberation, I'm running out of time. But midnight to no brainer. It's not a prudent decision to shut off the legal avenues for emergencies.
Speaker 0: I was just going to say you ran out of time. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Lovato. All right. Tiffany Goldman.
Speaker 5: Hello. My name is Tiffany Goldman. I'm in Denver. Accident. I'm here today on behalf of the health center. All of our facilities are located here in Denver. And I'm proud not only to work and live in this beautiful city. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I'm here today to support later hours of operation. A business should have the right of decision making for each and every aspect related to business processes. I am in support of hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.. I understand that Denver decided to reduce these hours originally to see where the cannabis rollout would go. I do believe we can all agree it has been hugely successful. I believe we are the pioneers in this industry. I'm not completely sure why. Denver, one of the fastest growing cities in the United States, would not ground a business the rate of operating their business hours in conjunction with state law. As we know, the world is watching. Colorado cannabis should be treated like other businesses. Not only do I believe in business rights, but the increase in job opportunities would be astronomical for this city. It's my understanding that there is a proposed amendment to this bill change the hours from ten to term. This is a little concerning to me since many of my single parent family employees would lose their ability to pick up their children from school after their first shift. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Goldman. All right, the next. Aubrey Lavoisier. Margie Valdez, Kay Gallagher. Please say your full name when you're up here. Kristy Kelly. And Rudolfo Gonzalez again.
Speaker 5: It's a different person.
Speaker 0: Oh, it's a different Rudolfo. Okay, well, maybe Rodolfo Gonzales number two can come up. All right. Aubrey. Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Brooks. My name is Doctor Aubrey Labrador. I am a member of the Order Advisory Group from Denver Health and Environment or Environmental Health, and also the Social Consumption Advisory Committee of Excise and License. I'm here to support the extended marijuana dispensary hours, and I am opposed to amendments when the state of Colorado allowed extension of marijuana dispensary hours. Denver did not follow suit. I'm going to propose to you that it was maybe a boogeyman in a closet kind of mentality, a fear based regulation about some boogeyman named crime. But marijuana related crime in Denver has decreased every year since 2012. Marijuana. And that's courtesy of Denver. Gov dawg. Marijuana adult use in Colorado is unchanged, but higher than the national average. That's courtesy of Colorado Department of Health. Marijuana adolescent use is unchanged but is lower than in 2013, and in fact, it is 21% in Colorado versus 22% of adolescents nationally. It's and it's actually less than adolescent alcohol use, which in Colorado is 30%, according to Colorado Department of Public Health. So I'm going to say marijuana is not the boogeyman in the closet. Unlike alcohol, which is a friend in your liquor cabinet, alternative will. Alternatively, Denver's 7 p.m. rule, including any amendment, is a form of command economy existing in socialist countries where businesses operate under strict guidelines of the state, guidelines that impede commerce, free trade and competition, thus creating black market economies. But Denver is a free market economy. There is a supply and demand economy functioning under necessarily minimal government regulation. Free market economies, unlike socialized command economies, foster competition resulting in better, cheaper goods and more jobs. And in the case of the marijuana industry, jobs that pay higher wages with benefits. Overly restricting marijuana dispensary hours is a socialist government intervention based on boogeymen in a closet, fear of increased crime. But stats show crime is on the decline. For over 40 years, I have been fortunate to have been an entrepreneur and business owner in Denver, a city in which I am privileged to pay my fair share of taxes and to provide jobs with benefits to my employees, allowing me to serve my community without the restrictive oversight of when I may open and close my business. I ask that City Council pass the bill as it stands, allowing businesses to operate from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Dr. Margie Valdez.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel. My name is Margie Valdez. I'm the chair of the AMC Entertainment Good Cooperation Zoning and Planning Committee. The Zoning and Planning Committee also has the responsibility for both alcohol, liquor and marijuana. At our February 25th, 2017 meeting, it was primarily focused on marijuana. We discussed the social consumption issues, and that took a great deal of time that even that morning after the social consumption discussion, we discussed the extension of hours for marijuana stores. One could almost say that after the social consumption, it would have been the ZAP committee members decision to oppose the anticipated bill for extension of hours. However, SAPP members are very, very astute. They understand the language, they understand the issues. We voted on the extension of hours to 10:00 at night. We felt like it was a fair compromise and that we did not discuss the extension of the hours, the 12 hours. I'm unable to speak to that tonight. We will be having that meeting on Saturday. I have always gone back to the delegates. I've always advised the delegates of what does that committee is recommended. And I we also post everything on our website. So we try to be as diplomatic and fair and transparent as the RNC can be. So with that, I, I can say that I can see that committee is in full support of the extension of hours till 10:00. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you, Miss Valdez. Kate Gallagher, please say your first name, sir. Thank you. I'm Kevin Gallagher. I'm with the craft concentrates. We are headquartered here in Denver. I'm also with the Cannabis Business Alliance, and we are definitely in support of extending hours of operations for dispensaries here in Denver. I think it just all comes down to economic freedom. We should be treated just like any other business. And I think this is definitely the step in the right direction. I would really like to talk about Councilman Herndon's proposed amendment. We are very concerned with that. We think shifting hours is a terrible idea. We personally haven't heard any benefits from Councilman Hurd in that this would be a benefit. I'm not familiar with any other cities that have hours from 10 a.m. to ten p. I think that's very confusing for patients and customers alike. Also, many deliveries occur in the morning before 10 a.m. We like to deliver in the morning where it's safe. It's light outside. In the morning, there's less crime. So let's just make this more convenient for the consumers. Let's get the additional tax revenue. We also heard from Denver police and the mayor of Edgewater last meeting and they were no drawbacks with extending hours. So, again, we hope that you offer your support for extending hours from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. Christie Kelly.
Speaker 6: Thank you again. Members of Council and Council President Brooks. My name is Christie Kelly and I'm the executive director of Marijuana Industry Group. I'm also a resident of Denver, and our organization is based in Denver. I have spoken with the other industry groups as well as a number of unaffiliated businesses in the city of Denver, as well as our membership. And we are unified in support of council bills 17 324 that would allow licensed marijuana businesses to remain open from 10 a.m. or excuse me, from, from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.. We understand that there are amendments that are being considered that would contemplate further restrictions on the licenses. We welcome seeing those proposals and would happily entertain them at the point where they are proposed. However, in industry right now, there is unilateral support of the bill as it stands with Councilwoman Black's amendment as proposed today. I'd like to address the concern that was raised earlier today and in previous meetings about the earlier hours of operation , creating a portal for youth access. It's been a long time since I've been in high school or junior high school, but it's my understanding that in the city of Denver, junior high schools open sometime between 730 and 8 a.m.. It's my understanding that in Denver, high schools open sometime between 730 and 7:45 a.m.. So consistent with our earlier chain of conversations, law abiding students, just like law abiding adults, should not be affected by a preservation of the ADA. Opening time for dispensaries. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Miss Kelly. Last but not least, Rodolfo Gonzalez. Number two. Okay. Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. All right. Council bill. The public hearing for Council Bill 324 is now closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Blackwood. Would you. This is. This is your bill. Would you like to go first or.
Speaker 6: I've already said everything I need to say. Great. This is first reading, so hopefully we can save much of our discussion for next week. But thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 3: So I first want to make a statement about an attack that was made on one of our speakers. And I think that's totally unfair. This is an open process where everybody has an opportunity to come and say their piece, and I particularly am grateful for the input that we have had from Smart, Colorado, because I know that it is not always a comfortable position to be the sometimes the only voice in a room speaking on behalf of children and as a grandmother of small children, I think that the concern about the impact to our kids is is a real issue that we need to constantly be cognizant of. I'm not sure that we have really taken a careful look at any of the unintended consequences. You know, we know as a city we're spending a lot more money on our homeless shelters as a result of more young people who have moved here that have ended up homeless. So that's one unintended consequence. But I think that as a city, having a balanced discussion is an important part of this conversation. And to do it where it should only be the industry speaking and trying to dictate what they want is absolutely wrong. This is, you know, a forum where we always want to hear from all sides. And it's why I appreciate Councilwoman Black ensuring that we had a second public input session where we got to hear from folks from the community as well as industry folks. I think this is an industry that has, by and large done a good job and have followed the rules. I think as a city, we've been very generous. And just because state law allows something doesn't mean as a city, we have to do what state law says is allowable. And this is one industry where we know that because marijuana is not legal at the federal level, that we have the discretion to be stricter than what state law requires. So I'll save some of my additional comments for next week. But I do want to point one thing out, and that is that when you look at how many stores our neighboring jurisdictions have compared to Denver. Arvada doesn't have any. Aurora has 23. That's the largest number next to Denver. Then when you go down to Commerce City, they have four. Edgewater. They have six Inglewood. Three Federal Heights. Three Glendale. They have seven. Golden has one. Lakewood. They have 12. Lewis feel they have to. Mountain View has to. North Glenn has six. Thornton has seven. Wheat Ridge has five. Adams County has four. And Arapahoe County has two. Denver has 218. So when you look at that number, you know, requesting that we have the opportunity to ensure that those that are pending applications, those that are going through the review process, I don't think it's unreasonable to ensure that they are in full compliance before we allow them to move forward. So I'm looking forward to further conversation next week. I'm going to abstain from the vote tonight because I want to be able to have the the further conversation on the two amendments that we're going to have next week. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We I, I appreciate that. We're in the council comment period and we got to keep it that way. Council. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. This is on publication, so we're making a decision whether or not to publish the bill. I am comfortable with that. So I'll be voting in support and I look forward to the more in-depth conversation we as a body can have about the two amendments coming forward next week. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, President Brooks. You know, I. I wanted to make a comment. I wanted to make a comment before we. Move to the next part. On another day, we would actually I think we'll be more commenting on the on the amendments themselves. I don't want to comment on that. I don't want to comment on where we're at now. And I do understand I do understand the message and what folks have said in this in these chambers. And I do appreciate that. I absolutely do. You know, I've I keep saying this does sound like an old man. I start feeling like Charlie Brown and he was here. But I've been here to see this develop when it was, you know, Amendment 2064, the decriminalization, not necessarily in that order, but to regulate it from from day one. And you know, I have to I have to admit, I was very skeptical at first. Absolutely, very skeptical. But you got to understand, I grew up around the bad side of it. And before it was regulated, I grew up seeing the abuse, not just from from weed, I mean, from other substances. And it was, you know, like alcohol. Other drugs. I saw it. I lived it. I felt the effects of it as a kid. Right. People in my neighborhood being gunned down over stuff like that. And that's absolutely the lack of regulation. But it's also regulation that achieves a balance as well, too. There's a level of responsibility that we can't just go gung ho and say, okay, let's just do all of it all at once. Bam. You know, we're catching up to a very clumsy 80 some odd years of. Liquor regulation. That's still I think is is very antiquated because I think it's a it's a much more dangerous substance. My issue, my neighborhood has always been the over proliferation of liquor stores in the west side. And there's some people that may shake their heads. Well, it's just business. It's the economy. Don't mess with the business. Don't mess with with the market. We have to because sometimes it's unjust and it plays out in an unjust way. You try to find grocery stores in our neighborhood, you'll find more liquor stores. And that's not right. So, yes, our regulations have to have to come into play in our actions on this dais and with and folks in the excise and license have to do it as well, too. But like I said, I started with skepticism. But I find myself now when I meet with colleagues from around the country and other city councils and other counties in other states. Being a champion of what we do here in Denver. Hearing their fears, hearing their hysteria kind of is like, oh, we've been there, done that. Don't worry, it doesn't create crime. It actually reduces it. And that's the message that we're able to do. But it takes time and it takes time for any for whatever your cause may be. It takes time to convince people of that cause their own personal experience, their own hands in it, their ability to actually see it right and see how the system works. And it's working. I mean, there's a lot of kinks, don't get me wrong. There's there's a lot of little there's some minor minutia. And we'll expect this. And we said this a while back that we'll expect something like this. We expect to be tinkering with this as we go. But my point is, is that look. The hours are being extended. That's a plus. As a testament to the industry, to the responsibility, to those standards that are being upheld. It's a testament to our ability to regulate it. And you're always going to have different amendments and different ideas and different ways to tinker with it in this dais. And it should not be limited. I had a we had a bunch of folks up here that were growers. Not very many of them lived in Denver. We're very reflective of the of the makeup of Denver. Not very many people of color out here. Right. And under those stanzas, they get the heck out of here. Go to your own cities. No, we heard everybody. Right. And that's that's what I want folks to understand, is this is this isn't just something that happens in a vacuum. This is something that has been we've been working on and working on and trying to achieve this. But at the end of the day, use my example. Right? I have my own personal feelings about it. I have my own personal experiences about it. Not always positive, but it's not about what I believe personally. It's about what we can achieve as a city to achieve that balance and move forward. Because I think we are absolutely headed in the right direction. Having said that, I can't wait to debate the merits of the other amendments and everything else and hear from people in our next go round and city council. Appreciate it. Thanks for bringing the bill forward and I'm glad to be part of it moving forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I wanted it first thing, Councilwoman Ortega for her comments. The. You know, we keep talking about marijuana, marijuana, marijuana and marijuana. And I think we approved that overwhelmingly a couple of times. I don't have that level of approval in my district the way we voted for legalization on this issue. And it comes from for a reason. We don't have always the best actors in this industry operating their businesses. It is a position of privilege with this finite, limited number of licenses that it is too burdensome to operate with extended hours, whatever, in whatever capacity or or later hours if it's not extended hours. There are plenty of people waiting to take those licenses and operate that business for you. That said, we're not just talking about marijuana. We're talking when we legalized marijuana, we legalized THC. And we are getting concentrations and dosages that are off the charts. Nothing like what you smoked in the seventies. You know, this is and that's legal and it's being sold. And people are dosing far more than what you would get in a through a through a joint. And so there are consequences there unintended consequences. And so I think being sensible, reasonable and expanding our businesses opportunities rationally is perfectly sensible. And, you know, it is not like any other business. You can't take your credit card payment. You can't do this. You can't do that. It's not it's not selling jewelry. It's not. I mean, it's close because there's still a lot of the security related, but it's not. So I do I just want to be mindful of that, that as much as somebody from a with a different vantage than me, I never I never was six feet tall or white or black or anything else. I mean, I would have a different perspective. And so that's what we do when we're sitting here. We try to take in as many perspectives as possible, at least I do, as a representative of of 50,000 plus people. I need to understand where everybody is coming from to make a more measured and calculated and reasonable and rational decision. And I would expect you to want us to do that across the board. I try to. So with that said, I forgot to ask a question. So to the gentleman, I won't ask you the question. Now, I'm going to ask you the question, but I'd like you to follow up with me on email, because I didn't understand the comments about deliveries because I just didn't know if, like other businesses, they can take deliveries during their non operating hours. I didn't know if that was it was a delivery service or actually picking up stuff or there were limitations. So if you could explain that, I would truly appreciate that. Thanks. With that, I'll look forward to the next meeting. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinoza, seeing no other comments, I'll just add to this is it's a fascinating conversation. I am a little bit like Councilman Lopez since the adoption. I've been in an incredible evolution of this. And I've come quite a ways as well with with three young kids and neighbors that partake regularly. You guys remember those who have been on who were on the council prior when we had the conversation about smoking on your porch, you remember that conversation that happens in my neighborhood all the time. But my kids are okay. They're eight, five and ten years old. They're okay. They're doing great, actually. And we've had great conversations around this. And I understand the fear and the paranoia if you don't engage and if you're not in a community like that. But I've come a long way personally. We up here have two conversations that are always there. We're always talking about it's a policy conversation and it's political. The policy conversation is. Should we take the hours and make it parallel with the state? And it's kind of a funny conversation because me being honest, Denver is always ahead of the state in many things, much more progressive than the state here where we're a little bit behind. But should we? The policy question, should we match? Are ours with the state? And then a political question of what does the what can the community endure? What, what, what's pal palatable to the community? And that's what we always must have the conversation around if the bill before us is extending to 10 p.m.. And I believe. We have the 10 p.m. time because that's what's palatable to the community. There's there's not a whole lot of policy for me, a whole lot of strong policy conversations around why not ten? Because why not 12? The state is set at 12. Why not? Give this business. Their legal rights as we give other businesses, too, to be said at 12:00. So it's just a question for for me to to give to counsel as we are considering this for another week and considering the amendments. What what is the policy reasoning for 10 p.m.? And let's make sure we know what it is and not just. Oh, I think everybody. I think that's a fair. Placement of time for this community, in this community and the community at large. I want us to really think about that. I'll be voting in favor of this and look forward to the debate next week. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Councilor. Councilman, you need to make a motion. To order, publishers amended.
Speaker 0: Oh, yes. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. The Council will 324 be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. And second it Secretary Rocco. So.
Speaker 5: Black Eye. Clark Eye. Espinosa Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Kinney. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please go to the voting results.
Speaker 5: 11 eyes, one abstention.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes, one abstention. Council Bill 324 has been ordered published as amended. Final consideration will be Monday, April 24th. On Monday, May 15. Council will hold a required public hearing. Council will three six to change zoning classification of 689 West 39th Avenue, 700 West Fourth 40th Avenue and 725 West 39th Avenue in Globeville require public hearing for
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending sections 6-206 and 24-508, Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding the hours of operation of retail marijuana stores and medical marijuana centers.
Allows licensed marijuana stores to remain open until 10:00 pm. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-3-17. Amended 4-17-17 to clearly communicate to the public and to the marijuana industry the first date upon which any retail marijuana store or medical marijuana center may remain open until 10:00 p.m. will be Monday, May 1.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04102017_17-0161
|
Speaker 0: An assessment has called out council bill 161 for an amendment. Madam Secretary, will you please put 161 on the screen? Councilman Lopez, will you make a motion to take 161 out of order? Want to remind everyone this motion is not debatable.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to take Council Bill 161 series of 2017. Out of order.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved the second it. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: SUSSMAN All right, Black. CLARK All right. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman can eat. LOPEZ All right, new. ORTEGA Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Close voting announced results 13/39.
Speaker 3: That's the second third of America's 13 ice.
Speaker 0: All right. 13 ice caps. Well, 161 has been taken out of or kills for Lopez. Will you please put counsel BELL 161 now on the floor.
Speaker 1: For publishing. Are we putting it into final consideration?
Speaker 3: You can just put it on the floor. There'll be no vote. Just put it on the floor.
Speaker 1: Replace it to be amended. Okay. All right. Are. Mr. President, I move that council bill 161 to 2017 be placed upon the floor.
Speaker 0: Final consideration to pass. It's been moved and. I need a second grit. It's been moved and seconded. Councilman assessment. Go ahead and offer your motion to amend.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 161 be amended in the following particulars on page three. Line eight. Strike the number two. Strike two and replace with three.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 2: That's the only change.
Speaker 0: Okay. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I know that we've seen this bill a couple of times, and I want to thank Councilman Brooks and Councilman Joe Allen, who worked on this bill so diligently and continue to do so. I'm bringing what I hope is a friendly amendment tonight that retains some of the work that Councilman Brooks did and some of the work that Councilman Clark did. It retains the definitions of a transit corridor as a quarter mile and retains the definition of a station corridor, train station corridor as a half mile. It retains the lower exemption for development outside of these corridors to the first floor. It's only changes to return to the three storey exemption for development within transit and train corridors. Change two three from the two story exemption. One of the big concerns that I mentioned about the lowering of this exemption within our corridors is the effect it could have on our efforts to revitalize Colfax and other of our main streets . Such as federal and Broadway. Lowering the exemption can frustrate our efforts to preserve the environment of our main street corridors where there are stores on small lots. On Colfax, we have the added barrier. Of lots that have very little depth. To meet greater parking requirements. We are incentivizing the preferred development that retains that Main Street feel of small businesses along what we hope will become even more pedestrian friendly streets. Development with this may have to create assemblages of several lots to meet the parking requirement and thus may be building larger structures that thwart the esthetic of these unique streets. We're working hard on Colfax, many of us, to bring more neighborhood serving businesses to the street. Requiring more parking just makes that effort more difficult. I understand that people are going to come with cars. But I feel confident that we can leave the parking requirement to the market. People won't rent or buy apartments if the lack of parking is a concern. And development will adjust to the market demand. Remember that we are not setting maximum parking requirements. Only minimums. The three story exemption is a significant departure from the original zoning that exempted all development on these small lots. Significant. For us in the communities who are seriously concerned about our dependance on cars and our city, state and countries. Historic practice of both subsidizing and incentivizing car use. I think the decision to lowering the parking exemption even further is antithetical to what our council has been encouraging for the six years I've been on council, and that is better pedestrian bicycle access and greater transit use. This is really a small change, but because of its considerable discussion and work. I believe it has big significance for what we stand for. And the significance to our work on transit oriented development. I asked my fellow council members to consider what it means for at least a good effort to be responsive to those special corridors in our city that we want to see retain their main street feel and meet some of our goals for a more livable city. I therefore urge everybody to pass this amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. Assessment. Councilman Clark, I see you logged in some just. Okay. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I feel like we're having a little bit of deja vu, because last week I read strike three and replaced with two. And so I'm you know, I think that we've hashed this out. We've had this conversation. The will of the council last week was to move from 3 to 2. And I guess I don't see this as an amendment, but as a repeal of most of the work that was done last week. And that amendment I don't want to get back into the all the reasons that I said I was bringing the amendment forward last week again, other than other than to say that, you know, in large part for me in my district, the zoning in these transit corridors is three story zoning. And having three floors exempt means that that's a full exemption. And that was not why I supported the moratorium, was to take a look at this. You know, this this bill is far from perfect and has been, you know, a work in progress. But I feel that that going from 3 to 2 was a good compromise. And I stand by that. I would encourage my colleagues to to reinforce what we voted last week and defeat this repeal of the amendment that was offered last week. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I would like the city attorney just for the viewing public, because this is already posted and we keep making amendments to explain to the viewers how it continues to be acceptable that we keep modifying things that will definitely impact communities within the posting period.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, you want me to answer?
Speaker 0: Yes, David. You can try to answer.
Speaker 4: David. Bravo, assistant city attorney. The there is no council rule that prevents you from revisiting and re debating something even when you voted on it once. In other words, you don't have anything like a settled question rule. So the motion is in order to to go back and revisit the issue of two stories versus three on the issue of publication and posting. I've consulted with the other city attorneys in our office and consistent with prior advice we've given. You can stick with I believe it's a May 1st hearing day. Do I have that correct? You can stick with a May 1st hearing date, even if if the motion is successful and is modified again to return to the three stories, it will not require reposting. Because traditionally we have advised that if in between first and final on a zoning a an amendment is proposed to make the regulation stricter, then you need to repost and move out the public hearing. But if an amendment makes the restriction less strict than current law or than the current proposal, then you don't need to repost. So it'll be possible if council chooses to pass the motion and to stick with the May 1st date and then the public hearing will occur on the proposal as amended.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you for that. So then. Well, that's that's my only.
Speaker 1: Question or comment. And we're.
Speaker 0: Both. So there's only. Thanks for the clarification. The only other things I wanted to sort of point out is that the an even less restrictive law has been in place on Colfax for 11 years. And so if the goal is to now make this an additional change that is still more restrictive than what has been in place for 11 years, more restrictive sort of debate, the validity of that. But that said, again, I go back to having a third of these parcels in my district and the fact that this half mile transit corridor definition largely affects, you know, the bulk of it in my district is along the I-25 corridor, which isn't a high frequency transit quarter, but that's where the rail system is that serves District one. It's on the other side of the railroad tracks and the other side of the highway. And I only have five crossings to get from District one to that rail. And of those five crossings, only two would sort of well, one pedestrian and one bike would sort of satisfy any sort of modicum of what is a desirable way of crossing the highway. It's not 23rd Avenue that's never been safe, but we've worked as a community time and time again to increase the rail height, to add guardrails , to to dedicate some bike portion. It's only 15th Avenue and 15th Street and the pedestrian bridge. But the rest of my district is cut off, severed by physical impediments to getting over to the high frequency transit. And so when we do this sort of blanket definition of TOD as being this half mile radius, we're not actually articulating what areas are truly accessible to those. Tods In the way that I think is desirable, a number of minutes traveled how safe that access is and what not. And so I've always articulated this should have been a mapped boundary where we made this exemption in this this without negatively having potential net negative impacts to communities that are very real and very present. And so, I mean, I've articulated that time and time again in different ways. So once again, I'm just trying to get would like my colleagues to recognize and understand that there are very, very real consequences to making this change to areas that are not truly served by high frequency transit corridors, but yet fall in the as the crow flies mapping of it. So I would encourage everyone to vote. No, thank you. Okay, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I was pretty quiet last week when this came up. I didn't make comments, but I just first want to thank you and Councilman Clark for initially working on this issue and Councilman Susman for attempts to try to, you know. Address it once again. But I guess what I want to say is that in this city, as we're seeing development pressures all over the place. We are not a city that has addressed first mile and last mile connections. And until we do that, people will still drive their cars. Yes, we should do as much as possible to try to encourage people to get out of their cars and use transit. And if we were really serious about that, we would not be building a 22 lane I-70 corridor. But I'll put that aside for a minute. So I think that as long as people continue to drive their cars, as they move into this city or already live here, they're going to use their cars to go to the mountains. You know, if they can't get to transit and I've talked to a number of people in Councilman Flynn's district who, you know, may live half a block away from a bus stop. But that bus doesn't get you down to transit to any of our train lines that could afford them the ability to get downtown. So we need to address that first mile last mile issue in order to encourage people to get out of their cars. I had an opportunity to go to Seattle to take a look at some of the micro-housing units that were being built there. We had met on numerous occasions with the developer of that project, who is also interested in doing development here in Denver. And, you know, their focus was attracting millennials to their development because they don't own cars. Well, when we went and met with some of the residents, what we learned was a good number of them owned cars , and they were challenged with where to park them if they did any grocery shopping. When they came home, they had to walk three or four blocks away because there was no place in the immediate area to park. So as much as we want to get people out of their cars, it's a reality that we are dealing with and it's an impact that is imposed on the adjacent neighbors. So I think the the request that. Was put on last week that amended this bill. Is reasonable. And so I am going to continue to support that particular amendment that was made to this bill. And my hope is that's what we have the public hearing on. So for all those reasons, I will not be voting for the amendment tonight.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, a jump in because this was my bill that presented for. No, it's Clarke's bill. This has been this has been we've talked about this a lot. And there's a lot of issues around this. And I really respect Councilman Clark in the conversations we've had around this and the folks that he's representing on this very important subject. And I just see councilman new poppin. Go ahead, Councilman Neal.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sorry not.
Speaker 0: To.
Speaker 4: Press the wrong, but I really appreciate what Councilwoman Sussman is talking about, because we've been working hard on Colfax redevelopment, and I'm looking forward to seeing that prosper and be a wonderful street that's going to be full of affordable housing. And people won't need a car. But I'm also worried a little bit that we haven't had enough discussion about this whole issue. You know, I think we extended the moratorium and was hoping that we'd have a little more discussion because I'm still getting a lot of feedback from our residents about the provision of the bill that's talking about the exemption and other new developments that are beyond their the quarter mile. And in in areas of the neighborhoods and especially got an area in Congress Park the 12th Avenue this you know it's about a half mile from. It's not a rail station, but it's it's a corridor. But maybe it's walkable to transit on Colfax. But again, there's mixed use there, small or large, that they could be developing and may not be good for the character of that neighborhood. So I'm really concerned about about this sort of support, the three stories for Colfax, but I'm not sure that's good for the whole city. So I'm really torn from from what all my constituents are telling me about the need for less exemptions from parking. So I look forward to hearing more discussion and I hope we'll have more discussion about this. And unfortunately, I think I'll have to vote against the the amendments. And I.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman New. I'll just say that I think Councilwoman Sussman brings up an important conversation around this around our transit corridors. It's not just Colfax, but it's it's many corridors within our city that that are affected by this from federal, colorable, a ton of corridors that we have in the city. And so I think it's important that we look at it. I think it's in a compromise of the compromise of the compromise. And it looks at just transit corridors, not the other part of this bill, which is outside of the transit corridor. So I'm in support of this. You know, this this council, the city has talked about the importance of affordable housing. And one of the things we did in the discussions, the nine months of discussions we had around this is talk about, you know, what is the actual cost of one parking spot and how does that actually affect housing prices? How does that affect the cost of overall development? And we know that it is higher costs. We know that any parking spot now on a on a lot to create, it is between 20 and $35,000. And so when we add this, we are adding costs to our residents for the particular services they're looking for. So I will be supporting councilwoman assessments amendment moving forward. So it's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: SUSSMAN I black? Clark No. Espinosa No. Flynn No. Gilmore I. Herndon High. Cashman can eat. Lopez No, no, no. Ortega No, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. All right. Madam Speaker, I'm sorry. Close voting announced the results.
Speaker 3: Six, eight, seven, eight.
Speaker 0: Six, eight, seven nays. The amendment to council Bill 161 has failed. Madam Secretary, we're just going to move on to the next item if everything is right. Okay, great. Okay. All other bills for introductions are ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills for final consideration council members. Remember that this is a consent or or block vote and you will need to vote otherwise. This is your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Councilman Lopez, will you put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills for final consideration on final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted. So I'm sorry. Our series of 2017. This is 365 337 363 360. Three 7408. Yeah. All right.
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary. Two weeks.
Speaker 3: There's more. There's bills on final.
Speaker 1: Yep. The bills on the.
Speaker 0: Final bills are fine.
Speaker 1: I still use the paper. Yeah. All right. In the bills for final consideration. 338. 330. 331. 332. 333. 343. 29.
Speaker 0: 352 Oh, right. It has been moved and seconded. Ma'am. Secretary, call black clerk.
Speaker 3: I Espinosa. I Flynn. I Gilmore. I Herndon Cashman. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega. I assessment i Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Please go to the voting announce results 3913 ays the resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no public hearings, and if there are no objections from members of Council, we will not take a recess in other business before us.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots.
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04032017_17-0161
|
Speaker 0: Council is reconvene. We have one final vote to take on a previously previously amended council bill 161. Councilwoman Ortega was correct. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. We need a motion from you to order published council Bill 161 as amended.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 161 be ordered, published as amended.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and signed it. I will not let any comments or questions be made on this. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Clerk Espinosa.
Speaker 3: I Flynn. Are Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. I can eat. Can each name Lopez? I knew Ortega. Sussman?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Black. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: Okay. Council Bill.
Speaker 3: 11 I's.
Speaker 0: Thank you. 11 I's two days. Council Bill has been ordered publish as amended. Final consideration of Council Bill 161. Public hearing will be Monday May days May 1st. So want to let the public know for the new council bill as amended, 161 will be May 1st.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots.
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04032017_17-0150
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. 11 I's two days. Council Bill has been ordered publish as amended. Final consideration of Council Bill 161. Public hearing will be Monday May days May 1st. So want to let the public know for the new council bill as amended, 161 will be May 1st. We have two public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents as they feel comfortable doing so. Their home addresses. If you are here to answer question only when your name is called, come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions and council speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time and which will result a total of 6 minutes on the presentation. Monitor You will see you will not see it because our presentation monitors are down. So we apologize about that. You will actually look on you'll have a light at the podium. Green light means you have 30 seconds left. Red light means sit down quickly. Your time is up. No, don't sit down quickly, but your time is up. Okay. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments the council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. We do not like that. Okay, Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 150 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Mr. President, I move that council bill 150 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second it the public hearing for council about 150 is open. May we have the staff report? Sarah Whyte, how are you?
Speaker 9: Good. How are you?
Speaker 0: Good.
Speaker 9: Good evening. I'm Stairway three Planning and Development. Here to present the MAP Amendment at 2827 and 2833 West 25th, which is sponsored sponsored by Councilman Espinosa. The request is to go from GMU three with yellow three. Overlay two. James three. We are in Council District one in the Jefferson Park neighborhood. On the next slide, you can see a closer location of the site. It is just east of the 25th and Elliott intersection and commercial area and two blocks east of Federal Boulevard. On Slide five, you can see the existing zoning. The property is approximately 14,700 square feet and consists of two single family homes and accessory structures. The request is to rezone to allow neighborhood mixed use and again it is from GMU three, UO three to GMC three, which is the general neighborhood context. Main Street. Three stories. To the West. The zoning is Games three, which is what the proposed zoning is. And then to the north east and south we have GMU €3 three overlay, which is what the current zoning on the property is. On Slide eight, you can see a map of the existing land uses in the area. The site is currently single. Family residential properties to the north, east and south are a mix of single family and lower scale multifamily, including an under-construction multifamily development at 25th indicator that is not yet reflected on the land use map. And then to the west we have the 25th, an Elliott commercial node and the associated mixed uses. On Slide nine, you can see some pictures of the top picture is the existing site and the bottom photo is an example of the character at the 25th and Elliott commercial area. The next slide is additional photos of the existing character of the area. The top photo is another photo of the toe from the commercial area, and the bottom photo is pretty representative of the mix of housing types in this area. Slide 11, we have the process so far outlined. Planning Board held a public hearing on February 1st and voted 7 to 1 in favor of the request. The Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee moved it forward on February 21st. The public outreach so far, all of the appropriate renos have been notified with the application was submitted, a letter of support from the Jefferson Park United Neighbors. And throughout the process, Jefferson Park United Neighbors did include an updated letter of support. There was also a letter of support from the Federal Boulevard bid. In your packet, you will see a letter of opposition from the neighborhood to the neighbor to the east. But that letter has been withdrawn as of Thursday afternoon, and I believe that email should have been forwarded to you. And then we did receive some additional questions about the historic nature of the property with no stance given. Onto the review criteria. We do have three plans in place here to review the consistency with adopted plans. We have comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan. Comprehensive Plan 2000 has several recommendations related to mixed use development, infill and legacies, which this request is consistent with. Those are further detailed in your staff report. Blueprint. Denver does map this property as single family residential area of stability. However, we are proximate to a neighborhood center area of change designation, and we do have language in Blueprint Denver that states that the boundaries of the land use building blocks provided in the plan are not fixed and that some areas are in a state of transition. So given this language, we do believe that the request is generally consistent with the blueprint. Denver Land Use Building Blocks. The Jefferson Park neighborhood plan. On Slide 17, you see some overall framework goals and recommendations from the Jefferson Park plan related to maintaining and enhancing the character and identity of the neighborhood, creating focal points within the neighborhood , which includes West 25th and Elliott. And then we also have language about developing the potential of West 25th Avenue as a principal neighborhood corridor. Furthermore, we do have sub area maps in the Jefferson Park neighborhood plan. This property is technically mapped within the core residential sub area, but it is the first property on the other side of the boundary from the 25th and Elliot commercial sub area. And again, we have language in the Jefferson Park neighborhood plan that says boundaries between the sub areas are not absolute and the characteristics overlap suburbia boundaries. So given this language, we do find it appropriate to evaluate the request under the goals and recommendations of the 25th and Elliott commercial area. And those recommendations include making sure that any new development is consistent with the character that exists at 25th. And Elliott encouraged new construction to be mixed use with residential and retail and to strengthen the neighborhood retail center to support the neighborhood. And the the GM's three district that is required does provide for a height limit and build to and transparency requirements that do reflect the existing character at 25th and. ELLIOTT So we do believe that the request is consistent with the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan goals. Onto our other review criteria. The request would result in the uniform application of the GMC Arizona district, and we will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. The justifying circumstances cited in this case are that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area. And there has been a lot of residential development in Jefferson Park, quite a few added units. And so we do believe that allowing for additional neighborhood skilled retail is a good enough justifying circumstance to serve a lot of those added residents. And then consistency with neighborhood context. So in addition, purpose and intent, the GM's three zone district is consistent with the surrounding general urban neighborhood. Context and the purpose and intent of the GM's three zone district is consistent with the adopted plans. So given that all five criteria have been met, CPD recommends approval. I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. We have. Four speakers tonight, I'm going to ask that we clear the front to allow these speakers to come and sit down. David Roybal, Justin Potter, Eddie Givens and Ambrose Ambrose Cruz.
Speaker 4: Hello. David Roybal a concerned citizen in large my address 2107 Salve Jason. I have a relative lived in this area for 40 years right there on the intersection of 25th and Elliott. And as his time there, he's seen the whole color of the neighborhood change. Neighbors is gone. I've been in this park ever since. The mystery theater was, you know, where they used to cut open the dead bodies from baby dolls all the way to chili peppers are talking about family star was channel 12 I remember I grew up in the Sun Valley and we used the church bus used to go from the Sun Valley to pick up the other kids on the other side. But as you see the part of this neighborhood, there's no character, there's no identity. I grew up in this neighborhood, went to North High School. I can't even identify it. And it's like to say the character, I don't see the character. It's a very uneasy neighborhood. When I go being a person of color, I have many police follow me. And I even tell the police I born raised here. I've been here since 1993. Come to this neighborhood. I'm against this. I mean, there's already another one that's on the other side. It's like and then when it's built, how much is it going to be? 26, 20 $700. It's like, who can afford that? A person like me, I have so much to bring to the community with my community experience, you know, bringing people together and I can't even afford it. And the people that come here, they want to be here because it has good view downtown, because it's 5 minutes from downtown. What happens to the history, the culture? I am against this and I just hope it's for the better me because every single rezoning counts. How did it get this bad? From Susan Sheppard? How a whole neighborhood could be turned upside down. Every rezoning counts. And I just hope that this that the until the character and it's growing and there's affordable housing opportunities, I don't think there should be any more rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Robel. Justin Potter. His own name is Justin Potter's as mentioned resident Denver. I live at 2319 Decatur Street and I sit on the Jefferson Park United Neighbors Land Committee and the chair for that. So I'm speaking on behalf of the Chapman organization. We had multiple conversations with the developer regarding this. We did pretty significant outreach the community. We publish a monthly newsletter that goes out, and so we try to solicit as much feedback for positions that we take as a neighborhood organization. And throughout the process, through the land use committee meetings and through the general membership meetings, basically all the support we had was very positive for this. As it was mentioned earlier, the neighborhood has grown drastically in the last couple of years. I moved into the neighborhood about four years ago and since then the population, the neighborhood has more than doubled and there's been no real significant commercial space added to the neighborhood. So generally most people are on board with getting at least the ability to have more commercial in the neighborhood. We have kind of the Jefferson parking. Our neighbors has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the developer, and we are going to be placing some restrictions on what can go into the commercial space, because we felt, you know, marijuana and some of those other uses that were allowed by the change are not necessarily allowed, but some some uses that were allowed by the changing zone. We're not going to be beneficial to the community. So we tried to kind of, you know, work with the developer and also kind of do the outreach to the community to see if there was support for this. And like I said, it's it's been overwhelming support so far. Land use voted unanimously to support it and recommend that it support that general membership support it and our general membership meeting. We voted unanimously to support the rezoning as well. So thank you, Mr. Potter. Eddie Givens.
Speaker 4: My name is Eddie Givens. I'm from Englewood, Colorado, and I represent the developer. And I thank you for your time tonight. This this development, this process started some time ago, and we reached out, you know, met with the councilman, reached out to the local community groups with the Jefferson Park United neighbors, with the Federal Business Impact District . And in and through that, they're they're supportive of the of the rezoning. And in addition to that, that they had specific things they were interested into. So we came to agreement in a memorandum of of understanding, which will it'll cloud the title of the property. So the development will meet some criteria that the neighborhood group was highly interested in and and Councilman Espinosa was spearheading. And then that's to have more business development on the street level, to have retail space. And additionally, as Justin alluded to, not having certain businesses and and drive through certain types of structures. So it's it's a nice situation. It'll never be a unanimous agreement, but it's a nice situation where overwhelming support from the neighborhood groups, the local government and Councilman Espinosa spearheading this and the developer are all all in agreement with the way to move forward. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Givens. Ambrose Cruz.
Speaker 4: I'm Ross Cruz, speaking on behalf of the United Northside neighborhood. R.A., in which I chair everybody an hour and only everybody I've come in contact with has been pretty much against this zoning change because, I mean, if you adding another building, another zoning change that is going to with that's going to hold these types of businesses in this type of residential areas. There's that right around the corner from the main boulevard. Everything that they could put there is already a walking distance from it. There's nothing more that they can add to right there. And as far as it being holding up with some of the character there, the character wasn't changed. It hasn't changed. It's been destroyed like when it went gone. It's been gone within two or three years. I think that was one of the last neighborhoods, their Jefferson Park area. To not be touched by the gentrification was one of the last. Now that block is gone, too. There was a house a couple of my friends were actually renting out around the corner and they got evicted. So that one next door to where she's trying to put this one is they can put that there's already two around the corner. They got evicted. So why ain't nobody I know that comes from Jefferson Park from way back in the day when you know the stoners and the hippies and the, you know, everybody in the bikers got together and took over that park. Does anybody remember that? Anybody here does. But that's the that's the that's the character that was there as the character that's still there. Some of those people are still there. And to add another another building that can hold, what, maybe a yoga studio brewery or three blocks away, you'll find one. There's no reason to reason in this area. None whatsoever. If there's going to be any type of rezoning, it should be affordable housing. There was no reason for this to happen whatsoever. If you need it, like I said, walk two blocks. You'll get it. You want to pay $3,000 in rent? Walk less than a block. You'll find it next door. You don't need this. That's all I got to say.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Cruz. This concludes our speakers questions for members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just wanted to ask both the staff person from CPD and the representative of the developer. What? So. So we're talking about a commercial use in place of what is there today. Correct.
Speaker 9: The proposed zone. Zone district would allow commercial uses. Yes.
Speaker 6: Will allow housing as well? Yes. Okay. So what is the the total sort of. Bulk of of space or units that could go into the site given that it's two properties. And I'm assuming they're adjacent to one another.
Speaker 9: I pulled.
Speaker 6: Up the.
Speaker 9: It really depends on the character of the development, how many units can go in. Obviously, that varies. The proposed zone district has zero setbacks on the sides and does have a pretty significant build too. So it can be a pretty large coverage site in terms of units.
Speaker 6: That come with the parking requirements per unit.
Speaker 9: I don't have that off the top of my head. I can take a look in the zoning code.
Speaker 6: Okay. And I'm assuming that the commercial space would have its own parking requirements.
Speaker 9: Parking requirements are dependent on use. So it depends on what uses is there and it varies based on different retail uses as well.
Speaker 6: Okay. I would appreciate having that information. And then while you're doing that, I'm going to ask the developer's representative to come forward. So can you just give us an idea of what the developer is planning to put there?
Speaker 4: Well, the developer hasn't made any plans and hasn't approached the community planning development yet because to do that prior to this, this hearing would be futile. But the general idea is to have street level retail. So whatever that manifests into, I'm not sure, but the coffee shop restaurant, it's some kind of retail.
Speaker 6: And can you share what the uses are that are in the agreement that are not going to go in? You mentioned marijuana.
Speaker 4: Yes, the well, the marijuana facility. But I believe you can't do that anyways because of the proximity to schools, um, a drive thru, the drive thru and there was a, there was a few other things. Um, I can expand on that a little bit.
Speaker 6: So can you come.
Speaker 0: Closer to like so I can expand on that a little bit. So the new zoning, there's a whole use table and we basically allow, I forget like all the commercial uses that are more retail, residential like retail type of spaces and then we kind of restrict anything that's more of an industrial type of use because we didn't think that would be a good, good fit as well. So it's, it's kind of like the drive thru is the marijuana stuff and then just kind of industrial type uses, car servicing type of things that we didn't think would fit into that.
Speaker 6: So is is there a reason we didn't look at just exempting those out? We've done that with some of the other zoning laws that have come before us. We've seen, you know, a zone request with exemptions.
Speaker 4: With through through a memorandum of.
Speaker 9: So when we see zone districts requested with waivers or conditions, it's CPD is policy to only support waivers are conditions when those are bridging to a future text amendment, which means that we've identified an issue that is on a list to be solved with a future text amendment, and the waiver condition is to bridge to that because it's not in place. CPD generally doesn't do waivers or conditions simply because of input, because it's not if unless it's consistent with our policy. In terms of what's part of a memorandum of understanding or deed restrictions, CPD doesn't take stances on those because we're not involved in them.
Speaker 6: So although this is a private agreement between the community and the developer, I understood the representative of the developer to say that it will be filed as a covenant on the property. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. I have no further.
Speaker 9: Questions and I have the parking ratios still interested. So for any multi-unit dwelling, the vehicle parking is one per unit for eating and drinking establishments in the EMS districts. It is two spots per 1000 GFA and then for for retail sales. There's different requirements for a lot of different categories. But in general the vehicle restriction requirements are 1.875 per thousand.
Speaker 6: GFA Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman tell you, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Know Councilman. I mean, President Brooks, if you. I'm asking for you to indulge me a little bit in case my colleagues have questions, since I am the applicant to sort of give a little background on on this all came to be permitted. Thank you. And it's unfortunate that David and Averroes aren't here. So I could speak. Explain why the reason for this rezoning. But the the primary property that this rezoning exists on actually is a an original Homestead Act home that was built in established way before Town of Highland was. And this came through as a yet another certificate Vernon historic status that would have had all the technical support to get to the council. But as we know, that would die on the vine once it got here. And and so this was one of those challenges where it this is our our character and our history being ground up by development. In the same form that has all the has done most of this damage in the GMU three zone district. So the status quo would have been that it would have gotten denied by counsel and would have had a multifamily apartment, I mean, a townhome project, uh, akin to everything else that is going on in , in the district, I mean in, in Jefferson Park in this zone district. And so the dialog was having been part of neighborhoods first the steering committee for Zoning Planning, I had been present for a lot of discussions about the future of 25th Avenue, which was a former trolley line. It's a very wide street and we're currently working with public works on putting diagonal parking on half of it. And so this was is, you know, because this was an area of stability and it was supposed to be single family, character and Blueprint Denver and all that. But it got rezone to Jim, you three. The character of that neighborhood has radically changed and departed from the adopted plan, which is was adopted in 2015, in 2005. So recognizing and that's part of the CPD presentation, but recognizing that there are community needs that won't necessarily be fulfilled entirely by another multifamily residential project, but it could benefit from a mixed use project. That's how the three parties came together the R.A., the bid and the developer. And it's actually been multiple developers because this dialog originally started with a different developer. And so and that this mechanism is actually something we've used previously in the district of AMU and a companion covenant, which is there's an agreement between those three parties that they will, once this rezoning goes through, that the covenant will be attached so that we can secure mixed use development, an area, a portion of that redevelopment that would be neighborhood serving and gives some direction on the architecture. So those concerns about pattern and material, as much as I would love to do it, and waivers and conditions and we have the tools in our zoning code to do that. You get resistance from CPD and then you ask the developer to sort of go rogue to come forward with an application which I'm sure would go through planning board and get to us. But it's it's a very cautious approach and they want the developers want to have some sort of accounting and accountability. And that's what the process that led us to, to this time. So if you have any questions about any of that, but hopefully I've illustrated most of what's going on. Yeah, I think we're ready to go to comment. So it looks like there's no other questions by members of council public here in council 150 is now closed, comes from the Council Councilwoman Espinosa So I went through the whole elaborate story. I can just tell you that there was tremendous support. We sat through a very actually that was the same day that the the small lot exemption went in. And so I was there for a very long day at planning board, but really, really supportive comments from Planning Board about sort of the uniqueness of this approach and to sort of how we how we capture change in areas of change when there's existing plans that sort of we're directing this in a different direction. So with that, I mean, we have community support. I want to make the developer aware. I think just in with the R.A. is aware that the two members that spoke out in opposition do not live in Jefferson Park. And so they don't necessarily represent they certainly represent an ethos and something that has been transformative in the area. And it's something that I, I desperately try to honor and respect. But that that the the frustration you heard there is is is not currently present as this entire process has been a very positive one. So with that, I encourage my colleagues to support this. So an amendment. All right, thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilman Espinosa for that explanation. I want to congratulate him on this on this work and this application. That's all. Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Seeing no other comments. It's been moved in Sacramento Secretary Raquel.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. It's frozen. Espinosa, i.
Speaker 4: Flynn, i.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman Can each. Lopez I knew Ortega I.
Speaker 2: Susman Black I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 7: I think it.
Speaker 0: Please call the.
Speaker 3: Clerk.
Speaker 0: Forget the president pro tem 13 ice. All right. 13 Ice Council Bill 150 has passed. Congratulations. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 162 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2827 & 2833 West 25th Avenue in Jefferson Park.
Rezones property located at 2827 and 2833 W 25th Avenue from G-MU-3, UO-3 to G-MS-3, from general urban residential context to general urban main street context, in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-21-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04032017_17-0162
|
Speaker 0: Forget the president pro tem 13 ice. All right. 13 Ice Council Bill 150 has passed. Congratulations. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 162 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Mr. President, I move the council bill 160 to be placed on final consideration to pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for council about once these two is open. May we have the staff report, Jeff? Her still in the house?
Speaker 8: It's not about parking, I don't think.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I don't think it's about parking.
Speaker 8: So, Jeff Hart with community planning in development, this is a rezoning application for a properties at 33, 25 and 27 taken request for rezoning from YouTube and for two Pudi Dusty 16 located in Council District one. So it's about Mid-Block on the west side of the 300 block of take zone is where the subject property is and the highlands neighborhood. And the property is about 14,000 square feet in size. And we'll talk about the existing conditions more, but currently 1895 era residential structure along the front of tailbone and then the back is a now not used anymore was a paltry sausage factory and the property owners are requesting the rezoning to accommodate the re-use of the existing residential building along taken in to accommodate residential infill in the rear. And looking at the zoning context, you see the existing zoning YouTube and that's reflected to the north and the west of the subject property as well. But then when you look east across Dayton and to the south, you see more of the commercial zoning and the commercial existing land uses that you'll see on the slide as well. So a greater mix of uses going east and south and then to the north and west you see mostly single family and two family. And looking at the subject property. So the top image on the slide is looking north on taken with the subject property on the left hand side. And you see on the east side of town, a lot of the redevelopment in the commercial has occurred there, not as much on the west side and then on the bottom image , same thing looking south on Tahoe and with the subject property on the right hand side. And these are images of the property from when the Polidori Sausage factory was still in operation. They actually ceased operations last year. So you see the existing residential structure and that's a long take home on the top right of the screen. And you see the images of when the when the sausage facility was in operation. You had trucks coming in, going from the rear portion of the subject a lot and then images of the surrounding properties. So the images on the left kind of show how on the west side of town it's really maintains that residential character or that residential scale. And a lot of those turn of the century buildings have been retained. On the east side of town. You see a different story where you've seen several of those structures of that era razed for redevelopment, for row houses and a variety of other uses. So the purpose of the party at a high level, certainly more details in your staff report are to one promote the traditional one and a half 1 to 2 and a half story context along Tate honed, which is reflected with the existing building and to accommodate the conservation of that remaining building and to accommodate residential infill on the rear of the lot. And so this is just a graphic that we can come back to, if you'd like, showing how essentially the the uses are sort of flipped on the site under the PD. So whereas you had the industrial warehouse use on the rear of the site, which is sub area B in the PD, that actually that nonresident you use will now get flipped to summary A and subquery A which is residential, is now going to be flipped to suburb. Where that becomes residential is very confusing, I know. But essentially it's a flip of the sort of use footprints that are currently existing on the lot. And the PD does conserve the existing building along town. It doesn't preclude the demolition of that building. But essentially it requires three very strong controls, I think, through setbacks and through very prescriptive standards on what elements of the north, east and south facades have to be preserved, that the the building will be conserved and with lot an allowance for a modest addition to the west side of the building. And so some of the key difference between the difference between the PD and the you a max two zone district is that one in sub area a the height allowance goes up to 38 feet instead of 35 feet, which is what your max two X provides for. And that's simply to accommodate the existing building. So the whole site essentially has you a max two X design and development standards in terms of setbacks, height, things like that. The only difference is in sub area B, which is on the rear of the lot. The uses are per the you RH 2.5 zone district, so only allowing residential in the rear again and nonresidential on the front. And we can talk more about some of the distinctions, if you'd like. So these are the criteria that staff use to evaluate the request. I'm not going to go through each one of them within the applicable citywide plan, certainly. And then we have the Highlands neighborhood plan from 1986. And so looking at the justifying circumstances that Steph provided in the report, one in terms of a change condition, the policy satisfactory vacated the nonresidential building in May 2016 and then also various adopted plans prioritized preservation of a neighborhood character which includes the residential structure like the one on the subject property of that era. And we've seen a lot of those being raised for redevelopment, certainly throughout the Highlands, but even more specifically on this 3300 block of Tay home, which is of concern to the community. And this PD, I think, does a good job of conserving that building. And then in terms of consistency with neighborhood contexts and district purpose and intent, the PD promotes a pedestrian active street front along Tejon and brings the nonresidential uses up to date home, which is consistent with the built environment as it is today and with the zone district, with the restrictions in the PD, the the building forms are limited in scale and also the uses are fairly limited in scale, the nonresidential uses to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. And in terms of why it's a PD, we as a city don't like to do parties necessarily, but in this case it did meet the criteria because it was a very unique circumstance with the two different buildings and two very different uses. So we found the PD was appropriate and there really was no working with development services. Over many months, we really were not able to find a standard zoned district that accommodated the sort of the existing conditions and the evolution of the site over time without any waivers, conditions and variances. So I must have skipped the slide, but planning the planning board did recommend approval of this request eight to nothing in February. And we also have two letters of support from the Highland United Neighbors Group that are supporting this request, in particular that it preserves the existing building along. Tejon So staff does recommend approval for those reasons, and I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Mr. Hurtt. We have two speakers this evening. If you come to the front here, this coffee bench, Alexis, Dan Hauer and Steven Latham.
Speaker 2: I am like, sustainable or just.
Speaker 3: Representing the applicant. And we're here for any questions.
Speaker 0: Great.
Speaker 4: Councilor Steve Latham visit here for questions.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Have a seat in the council as any questions and direct them to you. That concludes our speakers questions by members of Council Councilman Espinosa. Shoot. Oh, yeah. Jeff. Just a quick question again. Thank you for taking over from Tim and Watkins and and everything in getting this to us. We learned a lot. This this rezoning has been going on for a really, really long time, and I'll get into that in my comments. But, you know, but some great tools have come about between 17th Avenue Tavern, I mean, and the Emily Griffith. And then this with this is own sort of preservation sort of thing, just for my own information. Do is is the city now comfortable when the the the historic when those unique circumstance conditions are met warranting a PD? Are we equipped to sort of better, more expeditiously handle these things so that we don't?
Speaker 8: I wouldn't I but I wouldn't necessarily say that I would say that the PD tool, you know, is still there for situations like this. And each one is so unique that it totally depends on the project. But the tool, I think is working in for situations like this. But as you see, it's pretty dusty 16, which means we've only had six PD since 2010, so we use them very sparingly. But but in terms of expediting the process, I can't say that we've gotten any better at it. I just think that we recognize the use of the tool little bit better and what it can and can't do. Um, through all these communities, I.
Speaker 0: Would just encourage, take that one back to CPD. I would encourage having, you know, I sort of asked if you were the specialty and sort of you backed off from that, but I would encourage us to have sort of a team that's better equipped. I mean, not not saying you're not equipped, but that a team is sort of dedicated to sort of those that flexibility so that we don't discourage developers with the sort of timetable that that we took. But but that said, like I said, I think you guys did a great job in the final write up. And so I just wanted to make sure you knew that. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask a question about the driveway that goes to the back site. So if construction of residential occurs in the back, what how will the new folks access that? Does part of that road stay? Does it go? Can you tell us what level of dialog there's been about that?
Speaker 8: Yeah. So the Pudi kind of memorializes the existing conditions which is I think a 19 foot drive I'll which is one foot short of our requirement for a two way drive. And so when we looked at it, we looked at the stalk contact which was trucks going in and out of there for various sausage delivery purposes. And and so when you look at that compared to residential infill in terms of the impacts, I think that first of all, that would be the access point. More than likely, however, there is an alley that comes north, south and kind of jogs through the 3300 block that this property doesn't currently use. I think it's fenced off. So there's there's I don't know that the access would come from that alley, but I think the intent was for it to come off of town and sort of memorialize how it's been used historically.
Speaker 6: So this is in my neighborhood and I'm really familiar with the site and I'm not familiar with an alley that runs all the way through because what you're talking about is running into the Aguirre property where Rosalind is used to be. So there's a parking lot there. So I'm not familiar with the an alley that runs all the way through.
Speaker 8: Um, we have to pull up a map here.
Speaker 6: So. So that was why I was asking about the access. So it looks like the only access is off the Tyrone Street, not through Third Avenue, because you would have to go through a private parking lot to access it.
Speaker 0: There's a zigzag alley. It's crazy.
Speaker 8: It's I wouldn't call it certainly not a traditional alley. But if you look on the screen, it does jog, as I understand it. It does jog. And you can kind of see mid-block how, you know, you come in from 34th and there's an access point just west of town, you can go south and then jog a little bit west. And the you jog like.
Speaker 6: A real crazy, circuitous route to try to get traffic into a particular property that already has access of a T-Bone.
Speaker 8: Yeah. And that's something that we wouldn't necessarily address with the rezoning that would be a later with a redevelopment.
Speaker 6: Understand that. But I'm just asking the question I think would be helpful to know that.
Speaker 8: That's a good question.
Speaker 6: Okay. Does the owner representing had anything else to add about that?
Speaker 2: At this point.
Speaker 3: There's no current plans for the residential in the back. It's just more.
Speaker 2: The renovations for the front building that has needs quite a bit of work.
Speaker 3: So I think the intent, I mean, Ali, is strangely access. I think the intent has been to use that to drive. I don't think there's any future intent to use.
Speaker 2: That access besides maybe pedestrian.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you. I just wondered if I could just quick question. What sausage company is this?
Speaker 6: Paula? Doris.
Speaker 0: Oh, nice name. Okay. The public hearing is closed for 162. Council comes from as of council Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, it was the best. Now it's still great sausage, so hopefully. So, yeah, I just want to thank the developer, Steve Latham, for his incredible amount of patience, extraordinary amount of patience through this this entire process, but for also coming and coming forward with this idea and then, you know, being willing to sort of grind through a very laborious rezoning process to figure out how we how we did keep what is a identifiable and and beautiful existing Denver Square, repurpose it and redevelop the property to to your needs. I also want to let my colleagues know that when you put a building this deep into a site, you know, this is a long going concern of mine in my own neighborhood. You're definitely going to impact them immediately adjacent neighbors. And that was where we started. We started with getting the people that shared property line in the rear and to the south and to the north. I got him on board and explained what was we were trying to do and we had everybody, everybody's buy in. So as much as there was a lot of positive comments on the prior rezoning, this one was met with some very warm comments from planning board, even though they sort of questioned, you know, are we going down a slippery road of pwds? CBD assured him that there was unique circumstances, which there are, and it's a real creative project and it sort of keeps this part of Northwest Denver and Highland funky. So thank you very much for everything that you guys have done. Jeff, Lexi and Steve, thank you. So with that, I again will ask you all for your support on this really unique piece of team things. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, Raquel Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Flynn I. Gilmore. Herndon, I. Cashman Canete Lopez High New Ortega I. Assessment Black. Clarke, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please call the voting and thus results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. Uh, yeah. Can spell 162 passes. Congratulations. All right. See no other business before this body. Go and enjoy the national championship. Thank you.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 3325 and 3327 Tejon Street in the Highland neighborhood.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone land at 3325 and 3327 Tejon Street from U-TU-B and DO-4 to PUD-G 16, from urban context, two-building lot to a planned unit development, in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-21-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03282017_17-0321
|
Speaker 0: Oh four question. Great. All right. All right. And we have, uh, councilman new four question four 322 So, Madam Secretary, please bring up Council Bill 321 and 22 to be adopted. And actually, Councilman Flynn, I just to take your star, your thunder a little bit. Will you put resolutions 321 and 322? On the floor.
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I never thought of it as thunder, but I'll try to live up to that.
Speaker 0: Maybe lightning.
Speaker 1: I, I move that resolutions 321 and 322 be adopted in a block or.
Speaker 0: Oh, right. It's been moved. We need a second. Great. It's been moved. And second, because Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Brooks. I will be abstaining on both of these resolutions due to my brother in law having an interest in the project.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Good reason to abstain. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman, New York, your question?
Speaker 4: Just a question, Aaron. There have been a lot of discussion about the extension of this first phase of evaluation for the Great Hall, and I didn't know whether this additional funds was related to that extension is yes.
Speaker 1: Aaron Barraza, Denver National Airport. This is adding funds to the KPMG contract as part of this extension.
Speaker 4: Okay. And in the discussion we had earlier about the reasons for the extension, I wasn't really sure what those reasons were. Could you elaborate on that?
Speaker 1: Sure. So our whole our whole idea of this pre-development phase has been to really get this done right. And so we're taking our time with this. And we've taken this project in different phases. So right now, in trying to do this right, we need to we need to go through the process about a month or two longer . And once we do that, we'll be ready to submit a development agreement to the first City Council approval. But in extending that time, we do need more funds for the KPMG, KPMG contract and for the Norseman contract.
Speaker 4: And what were the issues related to doing it right?
Speaker 1: So there was a there's three major issues. One was security. We've we have we've had some turnover in the TSA. So working with our partners at TSA and reeducating them on the project that we're doing was one of them. Customer service was another one. We don't want the Great Hall to become just another shopping center, so to speak. So we wanted to make sure that we incorporate a lot of customer service into the projects. And the third one, sorry about that, customer service security and bracing in the Great Hall. So when it comes to construction, there was a lot of unforeseen that came up during the during the pre-development phase. And so we want to make sure in doing this right, we kind of took all that bracing of construction into consideration.
Speaker 4: So these were all unforeseen issues.
Speaker 1: They were all unforeseen issues, unfortunately.
Speaker 4: Is this the total cost, the additional cost for this extension?
Speaker 1: Sorry. Can you repeat is.
Speaker 4: This the total cost for this extension, just this additional money here or thousand, or are other costs are going to be related.
Speaker 1: To this? No, they under $1,000 is the only additional cost.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman new Councilman Espinosa. I see you.
Speaker 5: Might as well since you're up here. Thank you. There's no time extension noted.
Speaker 1: There's no time extension on this one. No, no, sir.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then can I get a commitment from the airport to give us a presentation either of a draft or the final work product that you know is supposed to be delivered to spur the subsequent final contract so that we can. Sure.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I'll reach out to your office tomorrow.
Speaker 5: Okay. But I if there's, you know, let's talk about it. I wonder if there's an element there that we should be talking about in committee as well, you know.
Speaker 1: And I'll work with our committee chair as well.
Speaker 5: Wonderful. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. I know, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: I just want to say that before the construction contract comes forward, which is going to be a big contract, it will absolutely come to committee so that we can get an update of what that's going to look like. So I don't know that the project is there yet in terms of all the details. But so I'm Sabrina, uncommitted. Councilman Herndon and I are both on the committee for the Great Hall and excuse me. So I just think it's important to know that this is still part of the pre-construction. But when they get ready to bring forward a contract on the construction, we'll see all those details.
Speaker 0: And Councilman Espinosa, do you have any?
Speaker 5: Yeah, no, I certainly appreciate that. And the airport has briefed me as well in the progress. And so I'm happy to hear some of Aaron's response to sort of about the sort of over commercialization that was maybe part of previous drafts. And so because that's one of my observed concerns is where we were and where we sort of ended up. And maybe as a step back, I would love for us to see it in its evolutionary stages so that we're not getting so we're getting something akin to what I think makes Colorado a special place and a and our airport a sort of modern landmark. And we're not just converting it into something that is totally commodified. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Well, Councilman, I think I think we're definitely going to have these presentations in the business committee will definitely have them to any presentations that the councilman needs. He can have those privately. And then you can continue to talk to the chairs for for more presentations as needed.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Aaron, for your good work. All right. Seeing no others, it's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, call.
Speaker 3: ORTEGA Hi. Sussman Right. Black. Hi, Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore.
Speaker 1: Herndon, I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I knew. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Please vote announce results tonight. One abstention tonight is one abstention. Council Resolutions 321 322 have been adopted. Okay, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 285 on the floor for a vote?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment to Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Nossaman, LLP to extend the maximum contract liability for legal counsel for the Great Hall Project at Denver International Airport.
Adds $600,000 to the contract with Nossaman, LLP for a new total contract of $1.2 million and extends the maximum contract liability for counsel provided to the city on all aspects of the Great Hall Development Project agreement at Denver International Airport (201629808-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-17-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 3-15-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03282017_17-0285
|
Speaker 0: Please vote announce results tonight. One abstention tonight is one abstention. Council Resolutions 321 322 have been adopted. Okay, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 285 on the floor for a vote?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move the resolution to 85 be adopted.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Ortega coming.
Speaker 2: So, first of all, I didn't want our folks from Human Services to come all this way without being asked a question. So I just want to verify that Del Norte is, in fact, one of the beneficiaries of the continuum of care funds with this round of funding. Then would you mind? Unless.
Speaker 4: Hi. Ben Levick, Denver Human Services. Councilwoman Ortega, that project that you're referring to is owned and managed by Del Norte, but the actual contract will be with Colorado Health Network, also known as Colorado AIDS Project, as it has been historically.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I just wanted to clarify because we do Del Norte owns a property and I'm on that board. I typically abstain from these votes, so there isn't even an appearance of conflict of interest. So I just want to verify that this funding source is in fact having dollars going into that particular project. This is the HOC project, right?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: This is Dave's.
Speaker 0: Place.
Speaker 2: This place. Okay. All right. Thank you. I think you've answered my question. So given that I just wanted to announce that I will be abstaining from the vote because indirectly, Del Norte is a beneficiary of of these resources.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. See you.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Ken. Since the right people are here. When we did the the permanent affordable housing fund process. You know, some of the discussion among people that provide these these programs is sort of recognition that HUD funding is sort of might have a fine. I mean, my experience a decline or already had been clearly we know in the initial announcement from the executive at the federal level that there is a market reduction in HUD funding, which I suppose would then trickle down to us through the state and then the city. I just would like to know if, you know, if, if and when you guys have some sense about that and what is its magnitude or impact it might have to the city of Denver if you would be prepared to sort of proactively present that to council, either in committee or in a letter so that we understand it . I don't want to sort of be caught off guard the way we were with some of the other executive orders. This is obviously a budget process, so it's going to be a little more protracted. But I assume that you guys are already thinking about a sort of post HUD funding. That's a reality.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. So, Eric Sullivan, I'm the executive director of the Mayor's Office of Housing Opportunities and for people everywhere. Councilman Espinoza, to your question, yes, we've already been convening over the last month with our executive team to think about what are the impacts of these cuts. We know the proposed $6 billion reduction in funding to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development will have a tremendous impact on the city's community development block grant funds, as well as a tremendous impact on our close partner, the Denver Housing Authority, which is already estimated because of the reduction in subsidies being provided to the DHS . They will likely have to increase rents on their residents. And these are residents who typically make an average household income of somewhere between 10,000 and $15,000 a year. So it will create substantial house burdens and may in fact contribute to homelessness in the city. So we're well aware of it. And as we begin to think globally about how what is the impact of those reductions across all our departments and including the work done in integrating human services into our housing work, we will certainly be providing a strategy for how we're going to address that, when and if those cuts go through
Speaker 5: . So I'm sorry that you have to work on that. But, you know, welcome to the new jobs.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I I knew it was a significant number. That's a hundred fold increase over the number I threw out at you. And, you know, you divide 6 billion over 50 states. That's a lot of money that we're we're the potential impact. So.
Speaker 1: That's correct. Good luck. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. All right. It has been.
Speaker 4: Moved and since friends. I got a. Can I ask a question?
Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Chime in.
Speaker 4: Is this a this Cary Grant? Is that the normal that very large contingent, Cary Grant, that we share with the metropolitan area each year? Is this the $30 million grant or is this separate.
Speaker 1: And this is separate from this is funding. There's two parts of funding for continued Cary Grant. There's continued great care grant funds that go to the region, which is health managed by the Metro Number Homelessness Initiative. This is one of six grants the city receives directly on their continuum of care to provide this work.
Speaker 4: Great. So we got to get more funds available for homeless programs.
Speaker 1: There are other continuum of care grant funds. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Very much. Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. New. All right. This has been moved in second. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Sorry. One moment. ORTEGA Abstain Sussman Eye Black Eye Clark Espinosa. Flynn. I Gilmore. I Herndon. I Cashman. I knew. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Please call the results.
Speaker 3: Ten Eyes, one abstention.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes, one abstention. Council Resolution 285 has been adopted. This concludes the bills that need to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered publish. We are now ready for the black votes tonight on resolutions and the bills. On final consideration, council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Fuller, will you please 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 the resolutions be adopted in the bills on final consideration, be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a bloc for the following items. A series of set 2017 293 2317 306307 313 315 Series of 2016 1266 Series of 2017 one 6310 293 294.
Speaker 0: Excellent. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Black. I clerk. I. Espinosa.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I knew. Ortega. I. Susman. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Lebanese Lebanese resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed upon final consideration do pass since there are no public hearings this evening there. If there are no objections from members of the Council, we will not take a recess and we have no business before us.
|
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 concerning the "CoC-Housing First FY17-18” program and the funding therefore.
Accepts a Continuum of Care (CoC) Housing First grant award from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the amount of $2,497,840 with a term through 3-31-18 to provide for 151 units of tenant-based rental assistance, 49 units of sponsor-based rental assistance, and 40 units of project-based rental assistance to chronically and episodically homeless single individuals citywide. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-10-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 3-8-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilwoman Kniech called out this resolution on the 3-20-17 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to 3-28-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03202017_17-0161
|
Speaker 0: All right. Pursuant to Council Bill 3.7 consideration of the Council, Bill 285 will be postponed for one week until Tuesday, March 28th. No formal motion or vote is required. Madam Secretary, can you now put up Council Bill 161 on a screen? Because from where you put Council Bill 161 on the floor.
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 161 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Council. Councilman Clark, is this. Is this one of your.
Speaker 7: Why are we doing the this other amendment before my.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 8: Council secretary. Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: The ghost. GROSS.
Speaker 6: Hmm.
Speaker 0: Oh, yes. Okay. Thank you. From CPD. The gross. GROSS floor area. Yes. Okay. So this is a technical amendment to the the small lot proposal that we're bringing forward. And this this has no major concerns over it. But I want to read it and we can get comments from members of council on page two. Line 16 strike the gross gross floor area of colon on page two. Line 18, strike two. The gross floor. Area of and and replace with all colon on page two lines 2021 strike the gross floor area of and replace with the uses in house in an on page two line 25 strike the gross floor area of and replace with all and on page four line four strike the gross floor area of and replace with all. It has been moved by me. Second, about Councilman Herndon. You know what? I'm going to call up a representative from CPD, Jeff Hart, to explain this amendment that we needed to get it done for the gross floor area on these small lot plants.
Speaker 9: Yes. So Jeff Hurt with CPD. So this is an amendment. It's more of a technical clarification. The purpose of the amendment is that the original ordinance was drafted specifically relating to gross floor area of buildings per as it relates to the minimum parking requirements. And we had an issue raised from our staff, which is that some of the parking requirements are not linked to gross floor area other based on number of dwelling units. So it's just more of a clarification where we were concerned that there might be sort of a loophole where if it was an exclusively residential project, then there would be kind of an omission with the text amendment that says it's based on gross floor area, whereas it's based on number of dwelling units. So it's the the the quick answer is it's a technical fix that doesn't change any of the substance of the amendment. It just makes it more clear.
Speaker 0: Excellent. And in comes questions by members of council. All right, Madam Secretary. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Said. Actually, you've confused me more by the answer on the confusion and dwelling units, and I apologize for not having the full text in front of me and let me put up here. So give me that explanation one more time.
Speaker 9: So if you look at the ordinance. Let's see if you look at Section two to the A3 where it says exemption allowed. All of the language says that. So depending on where the exemption applies, it says the gross floor area of all uses housed in those floors. And so we have struck the language that says the gross floor area and just says all uses housed in those floors, which has the same effect. But by excluding those floor area, it sort of eliminates that potential loophole where when parking is not calculated based on gross floor area and by number of units. It's a very it would be a very strict interpretation, but it could happen. So we wanted to make sure we close the loophole before it was exposed, I guess, as well. All right.
Speaker 5: Thanks for the slow reading. I appreciate. Thank you, Jeff.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. As we move in second, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Clark i.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. I Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman Can each. Lopez Hi, new. Sussman I black. I Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: Okay. 11 eyes. This technical amendment has been passed, but we're hearing that our attorneys believe we have the wrong information. Is that true? That we read the wrong information into the. Adam Hernandez.
Speaker 5: Adam Hernandez, Sun City attorney.
Speaker 10: One of the amendments you made, the last one said on.
Speaker 5: Page four.
Speaker 9: Line four, strike the gross.
Speaker 5: Floor area of and replace with all that should have been on page. Line three, line three, page four. Line four does not contain that language.
Speaker 0: Okay. So in the future, Adam, when you hear that, if you could pop up a little sooner so we don't vote on it, it would be helpful. Madam Secretary, what would you like us to do?
Speaker 2: Would you and the correction just be made in the record?
Speaker 9: Mr. President? David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. I see people looking at me now. So I'd recommend you remove it with the correct the correct line number and page number and and voted again only to read the whole thing again.
Speaker 6: Just to have.
Speaker 9: Somebody move a corrected motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we're going to move. I move that we have men council bill 17 161 especially on on page three line three strike gross gross floor area of and replace with all. It has been moved and seconded. Mr. BROUGH Well, is that okay, sir? Sounds good. Okay, great. Let's move the second amount of secretary roll call clerk Hi.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Susman my black eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting. Announce results.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Espinosa. Hanging, firing.
Speaker 2: Is it frozen?
Speaker 0: There we go.
Speaker 5: Thanks.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: Okay, 11 eyes. That technical amendment has passed. That's why you pay lawyers to be in the room. All right, Councilman Clark, you can go ahead and read your amendment.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that health bill 161 be amended in the following particulars on page one after line 15, add the following. Whereas the City Council recognizes that a comprehensive citywide program is desired to manage demand for vehicle parking and to further citywide objectives to promote the use of multiple modes of transportation. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Community Planning and Development, City Council and other agencies have expressed a commitment to pursue a comprehensive citywide program with the purposes of managing demand for vehicle parking and reducing vehicle trip generation.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second. It comes from a member of council. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment is in the preamble language. It doesn't do a lot, actually, legislatively, but kind of captures the intent that we've been talking about at all of these meetings that I think is widely shared by council, that we are kind of having a big conversation in a little box. And really what we need to be working towards is a smarter ordinance, a transportation demand management ordinance. This kind of captures that in here to allow us to express that intent and continue pushing and working with staff across agencies to get that work done because it's going to take something great.
Speaker 0: And as someone proposing Council Bill 161 I've been working on for the last nine months, I would say that this is the area most of us on city council agree on, that this is the direction we want to go in. Right now we are talking about probably an 18 month fix with this bill. But the hope and the overall transformation that we're looking for is a transportation demand management system that many cities have has instituted, and the last one being San Francisco. We think this is the right thing to do. And I'm just so excited because Councilman Clark is going to be leading this two year effort with CPD in public works. And so this is something that I'm really supportive of. Councilman, Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 3: Oh, thank you, Mr. President. Actually, I think you may have answered my question since this this stated that these departments have committed I just wanted to clarify that they were in the room, that that was accurate and that indeed, there is a commitment to establish a policy. And if there's not, then I would ask them to come forward and clarify, because I would like to know that before I put it into the preamble. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yes. And I think folks from CPD are they're happy to come up here. But we've had many discussions with Brad Buchanan, Jose Cornejo, the current director of public works around this. And Councilman Clark, I know you want to jump in as well, who have stated their intent to move forward with this ordinance.
Speaker 7: Yeah. And anybody who wants to come up, feel free. But there is an RFP that's going out on the street soon to start that process, engage with a consultant to look at the beginning steps of that. So I think it's already starting and in motion this is reaffirming the. Yep.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Good evening. Sarah Showalter from CPD and the citywide planning supervisor. I just wanted to clarify, we we have been working really close to public works, very committed. But the RFP that's being discussed that's going on streets would be focusing on two D areas and downtown. And so we just wanted to emphasize, depending on resources and what this looks like, we don't know exactly what the program's going to be. And it is going to be a huge resource conversation, especially because the only way these programs work is if you can effectively administer them over time. So looking at our peer cities that have these, as the council president mentioned, there's a lot of them that do. They have staff that are making sure that developments that have committed to do these TDM strategies are doing them, you know, years and decades into the future. So there's a lot of different pieces we have to figure out, but we're definitely committed to the concept and continuing the conversation for sure.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Sarah, for for bringing that up. And I think it's important that this body who approves the budget every year, think about that as part of giving resources towards that. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I think that it did happen. I wanted to let people know that what we are talking about is transportation, demand management. A lot of people know it as TDM. And while the preamble doesn't doesn't say that specifically, that is what it's about for those who who are familiar with that language train. And glad to see this. Thank you very much, Councilman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, Councilman Espinosa, I see you in there. I apologize.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry. I was like, keep fun in there yet get kicked out. Maybe somebody is working the monitor behind the screens. You know, I lost my train of thought, actually. I want to thank Councilman Clark for making for taking this on and making it a point, because I well, I'm sure this study would have been financed or funded. I think his leadership has moved it forward or higher on the queue, but is absolutely critical that we get these two independent agencies working together on this and talking about CPD and public works because there's a huge gap here where our city, our zoning and what we allow in this form based, context based zoning and what goes on in our right of ways serving those properties or they are not speaking to one another in a in a way that is that works uniformly. What I mean by that is that there is a plan, review process and for a lot of for probably 95% of the cases in Denver, that's going to be perfectly fine . But as you're finding in the TOD and in downtown and there are other areas, so I wish you'd be open to having counsel sort of inform where we have this sort of disconnect between conditions on the street and the zoning that is that is being put in place. We can also then sort of inform these other areas that are critically important that need additional scrutiny. And what I mean by this is if we take where one bit of disconnect is, and I hope your study covers this is let's take the 1600 Humboldt example that has already been part of this whole small lot exemption process is our current process would allow that. I mean, it is they can build it tomorrow. It's a use by right situation and permits already been approved. And that'll be 100% residential construction on two parts to 6250 lots, 108 units. And that would not be subject to the residential permit process. Why? Because we don't pit residents versus residents. When we do that impact. But as far as zoning is concerned, completely immune or agnostic to what that uses in a mixed use zone district. That could be 100% commercial, 100% retail, or 100% residential. And the difference is, is in the case of the 100% commercial redevelopment, in the same exact parcel, the same exact square footage, public works would do a residential parking permit process, the IRP process, and whereby they both would have impact on the right of way. Somehow we need to get public works and CPD sort of using the same sort of logic. And I don't mean it in that I don't want public works to to not start looking at any of these things the way we've done it. CPD and say I actually want CPD to two. Well. I almost lost my train of thought. Well, the point being that they're both a structure of that size, regardless of what its uses, will have impact on the public right away. The comments that that Councilman Clark keeps expounding upon. And so we need to have a better way of addressing I mean, looking at the situation, being proactive in the process and responding to it during the during the review process proactively. I think one way we can do that and I'm talking about these other areas that don't necessarily fall in the Todd's is we already have this process of the 5 a.m. sort of surveys that public works where they're going around at 5 a.m. and looking at the right of way utilization and it's over 75%. It's a heavily impacted area, whatnot. Those are areas where, you know, there's a lot of on street residential parking and so why not? Compel in certain set such scenarios, compel that survey to process to be done. And if a certain level of congestion is already found in the right of way, why not then use that as one of the things that informs the tier, the team process, so that you're you're compelling. A developer who wants to get to these minimum parking requirements to deliver on actual alternative means of transit is a part of getting there. And so my whole point is, is that I am encouraging this language because we need a tool. We've needed a tool for the last six years. And if it takes two years, so be it. But we need a tool to be able to look at these things, these situations on the ground. The conditions that are zoning has set up so that we're actually working proactively with public works and compelling developers to address these transit needs for these on street parking needs, these right away needs and in the public realm. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to jump in on the beginning of where Councilman Espinosa started and offer my also my thanks to you, Mr. President, for leading this effort. Leading this conversation, I think we've had such great conversations. And as we as we face the intense growth that we're having and, you know, I know we get a bill up here and start talking amendments, but really, I feel like, you know, the council as a whole has come from the very from the very same place, the same place of caring about this community. And sometimes, you know, in the details, we get disagreement. But you've just had such an open door policy to me as I've explored this in my possible amendments. And I don't think we would be having this conversation or the team conversation at all had you not taken this on. So I just want to say thank you before we got too far into this thing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Clarke. Councilman Neal.
Speaker 6: Sarah, I just had a couple more questions, please. Just for the public. We hear a lot about the Denver ride and the transportation strategic planning going on there. How does that relate to the tedium? Could you explain that?
Speaker 8: Sure. I think it's a great question. So particularly for Blueprint Denver, which is the land use transportation plan that's part of Denver. Right. That is the document that sets the policy for everything related to our land use regulations and the connection to transportation, which is really a lot of what this is about. And I think there's a great opportunity through that process to explore some good policy guidance on some of these tough issues to talk about, you know, how much we want to try and accommodate off street parking needs versus allowing flexibility in the market to set that. You know, there's there's a lot of different opinions out there on this topic. So Blueprint Denver in particular is part of Denver. Right. Is a great way to plug in and start shaping, giving us some better policy direction on these topics.
Speaker 6: Right. And I just miss the team program that we're proposing. It is funded. Right.
Speaker 8: No. My understanding is that they're right now Public Works has actually been taking the lead on this. So I am. This is why I'm hearing second hand. We were looking at potentially under our toady manager within CPD, sharing the costs with public works. And public works is still trying to identify in this calendar year, this budget year, where they would be able to find money. So they're working on an RFP, trying to get it out, but trying to identify the money now. The last I heard, they were still trying to find that.
Speaker 3: Half.
Speaker 8: The agency was committing to provide the other 50%, and that would just be for phase one. I understand correctly, which would be a first study. So it would help identify additional resources we might need. Like I mentioned, like how do you establish the program and make sure you have enough resources to have it be successful administered over time? So I would not say at this point that we have all the resources we need.
Speaker 6: Then what about an estimated timetable to complete the project?
Speaker 8: Yeah, that's a great question. I think you could easily spend a couple of years doing a project like this.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Good questions. Councilman, new councilman Espinosa. See you back up.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm just doing the math here. Tonight's agenda. Over $12 million worth of appropriations and the $50,000 we need to do this study. I'm asking the mayor's office. You're here. Find the money. I mean, this is 50 million. $50,000 is nothing in our budget. If you can't move forward on TDM, you're showing that you're not committed to doing smart, responsible transit and compel developers to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, not just part of the problem. So thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Clark, I.
Speaker 7: Just wanted to jump in and I had some conversations just this morning, and I believe that those dollars have been identified. So I think we're you know, we've got a long road to go. And I think we're going to have to prioritize this as council as we go through the budget season. But I do think and I want to thank staff for, you know, reacting to this process, too, and on a short string coming up with moneys to get this thing started.
Speaker 0: And for council again, we approved the budget and we're memorializing this, which is an indicator in support of how we can, you know, set money aside in this upcoming budget. And so I hope that we will remember this conversation. Councilman Clark, I trusted you're going to make sure that we remember this conversation in September to make sure it's included in the 2017 budget. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Clark. All right. Espinosa. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Kinney. Lopez. All right. New Sussman. Black. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I was voting. And as a result.
Speaker 2: Your vote is.
Speaker 0: I'm an I. Sorry.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. The preamble language including TDM, passes into the amendment. Okay into the bill as 161 councilman clerk your next amendment.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 161 be amended in the following particulars on page two, lines 17 insert the phrase including any modifications, alterations and expansions after the word building on page to strike the existing language on lines 18 through 22 and replace with the following. Any building located on a small zone lot that is voluntarily demolished shall not be considered an existing building. Voluntary. Voluntary demolish shall have the same meaning as the term demolition. Voluntary defined in Article 13, on page two, line 23. Other words new buildings on before the word small zone lots located within proximity to transit service. On page two line 28, replace the word shall with May on page three, line two other words new buildings on before the words all other small zones on page three, line five replace the word shall with May, and on page six after line eight, add the following. Section five. Section 12 .4.2.2 of the Denver Zoning Code dealing with the applicability of zoning permit review with informational notices amended by the addition of a new subsection D that reads as follows The construction of any new building on a small zone lot that includes a request for parking an exemption in accordance with section ten .4.5.1.8.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded.
Speaker 2: Hasn't been seconded yet.
Speaker 0: I have a second. Okay. It has moved second to now. Councilman, catch. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment requires that a zoning permit with informational notice for all new buildings on preexisting small zoned lots. That request to use the small loft parking exemption enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption and clarifies at what point an existing building is considered a new building for the purpose of applying the small parking exemption. That is voluntary demolition. We talked a lot in committee about the difference between new construction and this rise in micro apartment construction and also trying to get the levers as as right as we can to not incentivize the demolition of existing structures. And so I think that part of this is that commitment to try not to incentivize demolition of existing structures unduly. And also adding the zip notification was something that a lot of the neighborhood groups had come and asked, said, hey, if this is going to happen, the potential impacts for us on the street of, you know, 108 units with zero parking are considerable. Could we have notification that gives us time to sit down with a developer and talk about what's your plan to mitigate for those parking? How is this going to work? And while it doesn't give a lot of control to the neighborhoods, it does allow that space and time for a conversation to be had between the neighbors and the developers and for the neighborhood to know what's coming so that they can decide if they want to have those conversations and engage in that with the property developers. So that's this amendment. Happy to answer any questions anybody has that didn't get answered in committee. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Councilman Clark, any. Any questions? Remember, as a council. You have a comment? Okay. Councilwoman come. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: I. I am supporting this because I think it's really important that neighbors are informed about what's happening in their neighborhoods.
Speaker 7: The microphone.
Speaker 3: Two concerns. One that Councilman Clarke alluded to is that Xp-Pen doesn't actually give the neighborhood any power over what is going to go there. It gives them information and an opportunity to provide input. And I'm just concerned that people might think that it gives them some kind of power over the project. So I think it's very important that neighbors know that. My other concern is that our zoning administrator and her department could possibly be very overburdened. So it it is sort of an unfunded mandate and I feel for you. So just wanted to say that I had those two concerns.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. I have a couple of comments. So in our so folks understand, Councilman 161 came out of a working group that met five times that has professional leaders all over the city of Denver. And this topic came up and the group decided not to support it because it takes away from the predictability. And then it came before the planning board, and they decided not to support it because it also takes away from predictability. You know, in the planning board, the purview is pretty centered on the zoning code. And they do not have the the purview that we have on city council where we have to balance neighborhood interests, notification and things like that. The other thing that they don't have is an understanding of what has happened with some of these current projects. And most of these larger projects are in Council District nine. And I've seen firsthand that when neighbors can talk with a developer, there are some changes that happen in the neighborhoods favor. And so a case in point on on the Humble Project 16th in Humboldt, after a long conversation, we had the developer supply a parking not structure, but a parking lot adjacent to the property, which will alleviate some of the concerns on 16th and Humboldt. So I am even though CBD cannot support this, I'm going to support this because there's been so much consternation in neighborhoods and I do believe in the opportunity for people to sit down, talk and come up with reasonable solutions. So I'll be supporting this as well. Any other comments? Questions for members of council? All right. Seeing none. Madam Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 2: Clerk. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. All right. New assessment.
Speaker 3: Black eye.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Lebanese.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. 11 eyes. The zipping motion passes. Councilman Clark, want to offer another amendment or.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I did have another amendment that we've been discussing a lot in committee, and I will not be offering that tonight. I'd like to have that debate with the full council, if possible. And so I'm going to look at see if there's a date where we can have that debate and continue working on that . That being said, I will be voting to move this forward as amended, but without my my my planned Third Amendment with hopes that I can at least have that conversation in front of the the full council before we get to the public. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. All right, Councilwoman. Councilwoman, can each we have now amended this puppy. We need a motion to order published as amended.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that 161 be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: No order publication.
Speaker 3: Ordered. Published as amended. Thank you.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second it comments by members of council. I'll just make a quick comment. We we again started working on this bill or this conversation. And in October, September, October. What makes this process great on city council is the input from your colleagues and the input from the public. And I think the amendments that Councilmember Clark and others who've worked with him has made this bill better and more palpable for for folks in the community, even though we're talking about it. And I want to make sure we're talking about a very small percentage of lots in the city of Denver. I want to keep saying that, but I think this makes it a little bit more palpable. And so thank you, Councilman Clark. It's been great to work with you. I know you still got another amendment coming up at some point, but these ones I can support, it's been moved in second it to be order published as amended . Madam Secretary, Raquel Clark I.
Speaker 2: Espinosa Flynn Gilmore I. Herndon Cashman. I can eat. Lopez All right. New assessment. I'm black. All right. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I was wearing nice results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. Counselor 161 has been ordered. Published as amended. All right. Madam Secretary, is there any other.
Speaker 2: Than Mr. President?
Speaker 0: All right. All other bills for introduction are order published? We are now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members. This is your last update. This is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last opportunity to call on an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Kinch, will you put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor, please?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be passed, placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 288 to 80 9 to 70 9 to 90 5 to 90 6 to 80 6 to 80 7 to 7148. All series of 2017.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Black I Clerk I Espinosa, i Gilmore, i Herndon, i Cashman. I can each i Lopez. Hi, new Susman. Hi, Mr. President. I 11 i 11 ays.
Speaker 0: The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be require a public hearing on Council Bill 84. Change the zoning classification from 1 to 1 five zero East Andrews Drive and a required public hearing on Council Bill 277, providing an extension of approximately two months of an existing
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots.
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03202017_17-0277
|
Speaker 0: I. Police close voting announce results. Lebanese 11 eyes spell 84 has passed. Congratulations. All right, we have. You can clap. You can clap. Okay, we have one more public hearing. Councilwoman, can we please put council to 77 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 277 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and sang in it. The public hearing for Council Bill 277 is now open. Can we have none other than Jeff Hurt? The small lot leader was just joking. Come on over here. Are you all. Okay. So Jeff is not doing a staff report. I'm going to read what this is. This is. Oh, sorry. We got. We got our wires crossed there. We just. This is the. I'm going to read this. This is the council about 277. This is a bill for an ordinance which basically extends of approximately two months existing moratorium enacted by ordinance 201620498 Series 2016 Prohibiting Use of Denver Zoning Codes. Preexisting small zone lots exemption for certain projects extends an existing moratorium prohibiting the use of new rezoning pre existing small lots parking exemption for certain projects by adding approximately two months to the original moratorium adopted in August 2016. This bill was approved for following the floor by me. And just to give a little bit of explanation, there are people in the community. Community groups, neighborhood groups and members of council who said, you know what, we need more time for discussion on this very complex bill. Even though this bill deals with lots that are very small and are very small, less than 1% of all the parcels in the city of Denver. It's an important bill for many neighborhoods that have these small lots embedded in them. And so folks need more time for discussion. And we felt like that was applicable and we had a conversation and this is why this bill is forward. So that's the explanation of the moratorium extension. And we will now get a chance to hear from speakers. We have six speakers this evening, and I'm going to ask all six to come to the front so that we can get things started in, actually. Mr. Hurt, do you have the dates on the date that the moratorium? I believe it's May 20.
Speaker 9: It's it's May 26th or 27th. I need to double check. I believe it's 26th.
Speaker 0: Okay. And Madam Secretary, if you could verify that it's the Monday it's the last Monday in May of believe it's the 27th. But just for the record, we'll get that. All right. While she's pulling that up, I'm going to call up Bob Hickman, John Rickey, Valerie Brown, Mimi, Florence. Frank Lock and Tory. John Joseph Neiman. I believe that's all we have. I'm thinking.
Speaker 2: Heard me say the.
Speaker 0: Last Monday in May.
Speaker 2: The last Monday in May. Would be the 30th, but that's a holiday. So May 23rd.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. We have the 23rd, so it's probably the 20. So you're saying the 26, as far as you know. Okay, we'll get a verified date. But right now we're talking about May 26 is when the moratorium will expire. Okay. We have Mr. Hickman. Bob Hickman, you're up first 3 minutes.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President. Good evening, council members. My name's Bob Heckman. I live at 1081 South Gilpin in Denver.
Speaker 10: I'm in favor of the 60 day moratorium extension. And I would.
Speaker 6: Commend Council President Brooks for bringing this forward. After more than a year of effort. A small extension such as this is.
Speaker 10: Not that significant.
Speaker 6: But I do hope the next 60 days will provide time for additional neighborhood input. And allow counsel to better understand and weigh all the issues involved. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 10: And I would like to take 10 seconds. Moment of silence for the passing of Ralph Reed, the fourth. Did you know that?
Speaker 0: I didn't know that.
Speaker 10: Ralph Reed, the fourth person today.
Speaker 7: I'm good.
Speaker 0: Oh, wow. I didn't know that. I'm really. I'm sad. Thank you, Mr. Hickman. Ralphie is the Buffaloes mascot for all you guys don't know. Okay, um, let's see. We have next.
Speaker 6: Buffalo Chairman.
Speaker 0: John Rickey. You have 3 minutes, sir.
Speaker 9: Hello and good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I'm here to see a particularly councilman new, as you are, my direct counsel person. My name is John Rickey. I live at 945 Washington Street. I am here today to speak against the extension of the moratorium. This moratorium comes at a time of great need and great opportunity for Denver. The extension is proposed in order to study further changes to the GOEDERT code regarding car storage. Twice the issue of parking has been studied in Denver and twice the recommendations have been similar, more or less to exempt the first few floors of development from requiring any parking in cities across the world. In the nation, elected leaders have recognized the flawed economics behind parking minimums. They have acknowledged the increased cost of housing that results and the decreased economic activity when productive land is used to store cars instead of build wealth. So while there are impacts to neighborhoods when minimums are reduced or eliminated, we know that they are in fact positive impacts, reduced housing costs and increased economic activity being but two. So why then are we considering extending the moratorium? Here's how I see it. Many of your constituents vocal ones I'm sure are reluctant to see their on street parking become more difficult. They are upset at the quick pace of redevelopment in their neighborhoods. They are frustrated because they feel like some unspoken bargain has been broken between the city and themselves. I am here to tell you today that there are other constituents who do not feel this way. Ones who see the protection of street parking as an undeserved subsidy. Ones who are eager to share our great city with newcomers and see the pace of redevelopment as a positive force to build community, create more sustainable neighborhoods, and raise revenues. And ones who acknowledge that no such unspoken agreement exists between the city and private car owners to protect their parking privileges on public city streets. This isn't even to mention the great number of people moving to the city who were forced to seek housing in the suburbs because of our reluctance to allow more development. They too, would be your constituents if given the chance. Our code works just fine and is probably better as written than whatever compromise is eventually made to appease car owners. Car owners who don't wish to share the street or risk being forced to provide for their own parking. Which, incidentally, is exactly what they're demanding of others. I urge you not to let panicky people, with their in-built prejudices and lack of desire to acknowledge the evidence, trap you into stymieing much needed and desired redevelopment. Be the kinds of leaders which bring their people along with them into a better future, rather than follow the popular sentiment against all evidence nationally, locally and economic that parking minimums do more damage than good. Please cast your vote against the extension of the moratorium. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Rickey. Valerie Brown.
Speaker 8: A second Mr. Hickman's support of the 60 day moratorium. I do think we need more discussions on the subject and specifically where it relates to other alternative forms of transportation. And as Mr. Espinosa has pointed out, it's often a case of what things are like on the ground as opposed to a kind of concept for an entire city. And I'm wondering about the codification of this sort of plan for the entire city of Denver, even though you say, President Brooks, that.
Speaker 3: You know, there are small number of these lots.
Speaker 8: But, you know, when you're talking about 108 units and possibly 108 additional automobiles that need to find parking spaces in an area that's already quite dense, we need more time to discuss and reach some more compromise, I think.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mimi. Florence, not pass.
Speaker 5: The.
Speaker 0: Miss Brown, can you come back up to state your name just for the record?
Speaker 8: I'm Valerie Brown, 1623 Ogden Street, Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Ms.. Florence. I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. Frank Legendary. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you. President Brooks and City Council members. My name is Frank Lucas. Tory. I live at 16th and Gaylord 80206 City Park West Area and I am speaking in opposition to extending the moratorium. When we first moved back to Denver in 2006 and we started getting engaged in the community as we wanted to be, you know, active participants. We started getting involved, going to meetings, meeting about City Cheeseman Park Master Plan. You know, we would go to that first question out of the gate. What about parking, go to a another meeting about homelessness issues. First question out of the gate, what about parking? It became clear to me that no matter what the issue, we were going to talk about parking unless I was the first person to ask a question, which is exactly what I started to do. And I started to ask any question that was relevant to the topic at hand about energy or the park system or whatever. And that directed the conversation in the way that I thought the intended meeting was supposed to go. I bring this up because we are potentially going to extend the moratorium for another couple of months. I will, even though I oppose that. I'll grant that maybe that's what's going to happen. Okay. But every time that we continue to talk about parking, it's an opportunity cost. We're not talking about the the impacts that are causing gentrification in communities. We're not talking about homelessness. We're not talking about affordable living. We're not talking about how we can be a more energy efficient community. We're not talking about anything else that really has any real matter, you know, to our lives as members of the community. And and we're talking about a land area in Denver that is less than 1%, likely less than a half a percent of our land area. And we're spending all of this brainpower and all of this brain damage. And what I beseech you is to we've got to try it. We've got to collect the data and let some of these things happen so that we can see the actual impacts on the ground. I when when it was first brought to me as president of Uptown on the Hill, when I was a part of that, when president of that R.A. about the 16th and Humboldt before the meeting , I just did a little Google View, and I saw and I counted a hundred parking spots within a block of that development. I was like, If we're going to talk about parking, let's talk about housing, please. I'm getting tired of talking about parking. I'm sure you are, too. Let's talk about issues that matter. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Locke and Tory John Joseph Nieman.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I haven't. It was John Joseph Nieman 2786, South Wall Street. I'm the president of the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation, and the Internet Corporation addresses citywide issues. And this has been one of those issues that has come before and seen. It's also part of we do a survey every year asking neighborhoods what are their top concerns? And parking is one of our top five concerns. And so we had a very heated discussion during our ANC delegates meeting and the motion strongly urging city council to extend the moratorium as necessary for permits for small parking exemptions, which is due to expire March 30th, 2017, and search for a more equitable solution with balance between the parking requirement, constraints of development and the associated impact of increased neighborhood street parking. After a very good discussion. The motion carried 44 nine against and five abstaining, including Joel Noble. So I wanted to make sure that that was in the official record. I know you guys are probably aware of that and I won't take any more of your time. But this is an important subject and it's something important to the neighborhoods and therefore something important. I see. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions by members of council? All right. Oh. Councilman Espinosa has a question, but.
Speaker 5: Might as well have a couple of questions. Frank? How old? I mean, how long have you been the bad president?
Speaker 11: I am the executive director. I'm not on the board. And it will be a full two years at the end of this month.
Speaker 5: And do you have any sense of how old Colfax in Colfax is.
Speaker 11: The boulevard over the avenue? Well, it's had a number of names, but this road has existed since the gold rush. It was called the Golden Road to get to Golden and not find gold.
Speaker 5: Great. That was it. No further questions. And then one for Mr. Rinky, and I'd say that. Right. All right.
Speaker 0: Ricky.
Speaker 5: Ricky. Since you've made a bunch of generalizations about who people who are in favor and who are opposed, many of which I don't know what facts those are based on. I would like some perspective. So how long if you were you a native to Denver?
Speaker 9: I've lived here since 1990, on and off.
Speaker 5: So. Okay. And always in the Capitol Hill community that you're in now. When did you move to Capitol Hill?
Speaker 9: I moved to Capitol Hill in October of 2015.
Speaker 5: Okay. So you're now you were you subject to these sort of the sort of Capitol Hill sort of parking constraints and conditions prior to that?
Speaker 9: No, I lived in the Clayton neighborhood before that of single family homes, easy street parking.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. And thank you for that. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay. The public hearing for Council Bill 277 has closed comments by members of council. I brought this forward. So. So. So actually over the last couple of minutes when I was.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So. I wasn't going to talk about it. But, you know, I've heard these arguments time and time again here. I heard him online. I heard him everywhere. And, you know, what we're trying to do is bring responsible development. And so I just want to speak to this. I've been here. I don't get to claim Native rights, but I've been here since 86. So that's a considerable amount of time. Denver has changed dramatically in 30 years, dramatically. So to assume that there's no development rights or whatever and we're squeezing out development. When I came here 30 years ago, there were viaducts going over acres and acres and acres of railroad tracks down at the river, Central Platte Valley, the riverfront and that whole area. We have opened up this city to massive amounts of development and it still persists today. Even if this moratorium would go on for another five years, we would still be able to develop hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of square footage, square foot of affordable housing, market rate housing, high end housing. And it's just it's this fallacy that this little moratorium is going to somehow disrupt the entire system or this if we don't make this one change and put this stranglehold on these communities that are impacted by this, that will never change the way we transit in Denver. I'm sorry, this is not that solution. TDM has the potential. There are other conversations that we could and should be having that we're behind the eight ball on. But I just can't. I can't. I can't stand here as a representative of people that built their communities for decades, built their communities. And, you know, you mentioned you were 16, ten Ogden. There are houses over there, beautiful mansions that people were you know, there were drug dens. There were there were horrible places that people went in there and and built those things and restored them, nurtured them and created the sort of desirability of that area through a long period of time, through iterations of Colfax, iterations of Colfax. The fact that all these areas are desirable today is because of that work. So to then belittle people who want to sort of stand on principle and say that, no, enough is enough, we need to be more measured, more calculated and more thoughtful about this thing is sort of a NIMBYism forgets the fact that these guys have put in a lot of mileage and a lot of blood, sweat and tears into Denver. And I'm not saying you guys don't. But you know, it's not just the Johnny come lately that now have the trump card over everything that we do. I guess, you know, just because you have good access and a megaphone doesn't mean that you're always 100% right. A measured 60 day moratorium is nothing counseling.
Speaker 0: Which is a comment. Yeah, but we said we wouldn't do the attacks, and now it's getting more attack. Okay.
Speaker 5: Well I just and I lowering we lowered the parking requirements as a city in 2010. We lowered them. And so I want people to understand that, that our parking requirements were much, much higher than they were in 2010. So we've made a dramatic reduction, even with a moratorium in place on a zero exemption. So I just I just want. I just I support. I actually support zero parking requirements, zero parking requirements. And I actually support them in a whole lot of others own districts, not just these small lots, but we need to be more thoughtful about it. We're trying to have that conversation. That's what we're talking about. And I don't want us to get hung up on this one little thing and and to sort of continue to undermine people who want are trying to have they're trying to push that conversation because of the illumination that came to light on some of the usury conduct behind this one exemption. This one exemption is is just not fair to wholesale blocks of people in this in this city. And so I, I appreciate I honestly do appreciate people on both sides pushing this conversation because we will I am one of those people and you seen it week in and week out that I believe we actually get better legislation when we do battle these things out. And they are a split vote because going along to get along doesn't necessarily get us to a better place. I mean, we see that at the federal level. You got to question these things some time in order to hammer out a better way forward. So thanks.
Speaker 0: Okay, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to once again, thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership on this issue, for the dialog that is generated and for bringing forward this extension. I'm happy to support it. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. Councilman Castro.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I just don't think it does anybody any good. There's demonizing of people that want to have a discussion. There's we're still talking about parking because there's two sides to the story. There are two valid sides to this discussion. So that's why the conversation is continuing. And I'll just echo a little bit of what what Councilman Espinosa said. I mean, last year we permitted development over $4 billion in our city. We're developing at historic levels. We're developing to the point where when the city tries to get bids on construction projects, we sometimes get no.
Speaker 5: Bids.
Speaker 4: Because there aren't crews available. Homeowners can't find people to do renovations because there aren't crews available. We're developing in this city and besides that, the amount of parking that's being asked for on Councilman Brooks's bill and even with the amendment that that Councilman Clark will put forward, we're not asking for one car per unit, we're not asking for a half a car per unit. I think at the max it gets down around a quarter. You know, it's. I'll just leave it as it's a valid discussion. I wholeheartedly support another couple of months and if we need more than that, I'd support more than that. There's two sides to the discussion. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Castro. Councilman. No.
Speaker 6: Yes. Two months is not not too long for a continuous session. There's a lot of I just surveyed my constituents and had about 700 people responded, District ten. And it's real clear to me that more discussion is needed to make sure we understand what this bill is going to do and what the parking requirements will have. And so I favor the extension for 60 days. And and there's nothing wrong with ever having more discussion with your constituents and with your neighborhoods and making sure we're making the right decision. So I hope our colleagues will vote for the 60 day extension.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Mr. President. I look, I. Most of the colleagues have said exactly what I wanted to say. I just think, well, I support this because in my years being here as a councilman, great policy, the best policy policies that we have adopted have always been very thorough. They've taken time. They've required a lot of thought and a lot of input. And I think that's you know, that's just this is just another example of that. I supported the moratorium and I look forward to all the conversations.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa?
Speaker 5: Yeah. I just wanted to say one thing. Based on you cutting me off, I sort of realized that maybe it sounded like I was going after a couple of individuals. So I want to make it very, very clear to both Frank Lo Cantor and John. They're both great public servants and community activists. The work that you're doing on the on Colfax is incredible. And the city is, in fact, much, much better for the work that you're doing. And John, as a as a volunteer with I.N.S. on Parks Committee, the same thing that is that is wonderful work. And and and I apologize because I woke up on three and a half days of bed rest from being sick, and I woke up on the wrong side of the bed. So I'm impassioned, more so. But I do want to recognize both of you guys for wonderful work that you're doing. And I do believe that the work that you're doing, both in your advocacy, that you have moves this city in a better direction. Sincerely. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I will be supporting this moratorium going forward. And just a couple of comments being, you know, we all have passions. We all have things that we're working on on city council. Small lot parking exemption was not one of mine when I first came on city council. But because it's become and you can see the passion on this day, the passion in the audience, you can see that it's an issue that we've got to talk about and we got to figure out what solution works best today and in the future of Denver. And and that's the heart conversation. And as long as we don't, you know, ostracize individuals on both sides, but really try and find that balance, I think we're going to be okay. I was I was ostracized in this paper called the Glendale Chronicle. But if you can see in this audience, you don't see one developer. You may see him in the audience. None of our speakers were developers. They were community people on both sides. And I think that's important for us to really understand that this is about our communities, about our neighborhoods. And I think it's easy to have the conversation about this is development versus neighborhoods. It's actually folks on both sides, the neighborhoods in here having a conversation. And so let's not jump so easy to the easy arguments to castigate and ostracize. Let's have the hard conversations. And we will be having those conversations. I'm going to give you the dates because I didn't do this earlier. April 17th will be second reading and it will also be the public hearing for the small lot parking tax amendment April 17th and May 26th will actually be the last day that the expiration will happen on small lot parking. And so with that, Madam Secretary, it's been moved and seconded. Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye Clerk.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Hi. Flynn Gilmore. I Herndon Cashman. Can eat Lopez. I knew Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please because voting as the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes control to 77 has been passed. Thank you all for showing up, putting money in the meters and going through security to be in here to have a conversation. Monday, April 17, 2017. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 161, amending the zoning code to revise parking exemptions.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance providing for an extension of approximately two months of an existing moratorium enacted by Ordinance 20160498, Series of 2016, prohibiting the use of the Denver Zoning Code’s pre-existing small zone lot parking exemption for certain projects.
Extends an existing moratorium prohibiting the use of the Denver Zoning Code’s pre-existing small zone lot parking exemption for certain projects by adding approximately two months to the original moratorium adopted in August of 2016. This bill was approved for filing on the floor by Councilmember Brooks on 2-23-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03132017_17-0148
|
Speaker 1: All right. I will do a quick recap. Under resolutions, we have nothing under bills for introduction. Councilman Flynn has called out Council Bill 148 simply for comment. And under bills for final consideration, we have nothing. And under pending, we have nothing. Madam Secretary, can you please put up council bill 148. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, your comment.
Speaker 7: Thank, Mr. President. And is Julie here? Okay, thank you. She might be able to address the comment as well, but what we're doing here is, among other things, we're changing the dates by which one would apply if eligible seniors and disabled property owners and renters for a rebate on portion of the property tax or their rents if they are renters. And we're changing that deadline from April 1st of the year, actually the second year after that tax year. So we're still accepting applicant applications for rebate refunds on the tax year 2015. We're changing that to December 31st, which implies that the deadline for 2015 applications would already have passed. And the only reason I'm calling it out for a comment, Mr. President, is to point out that the website at Human Services already says December 31st, and if there are seniors and disabled who are qualified for this refund, they need to know that the deadline still is April 1st. This year, you have another two and a half weeks to get an application in. So if you went to the website and saw that, you might be discouraged and not apply. So Julie, I don't know if you want to add to that. I hope that everything I said was correct. But before we pass this, I want to the people on Channel eight at least to know that.
Speaker 6: Julie Prine, Deputy Chief of Staff, Denver Human Services. Yes, everything you said is correct.
Speaker 2: If applications come in for the 2015.
Speaker 6: Property tax or rental payments through that year, we will accept those applications through April.
Speaker 7: 1st, through April 1st. Thank you. And going forward, those folks who have already applied get applications every year just because they've applied in previous years. Is that still correct?
Speaker 2: And they will also get an instruction.
Speaker 6: Sheet.
Speaker 2: That tells them how.
Speaker 6: Much the benefit is, how much the eligibility requirements are, and the dates for the applications.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you, Mr.. I just wanted to point out that people can still apply.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Julie. All right. This concludes our items of bills that need to be called out. All bills for all of the bills for introduction are now order published. We are now ready for the block votes on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last time to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Cashman, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Thank you, 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 2017 to 30 to 84 to 20 6 to 60 4 to 60 5 to 60 8 to 60 9 to 71. 152 to 60 6 to 60 7 to 70 2 to 60 122 to 31 1337. That series of 2016 and back to series 2017 to 24.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. It's been moved and second amount of Secretary Rocco.
Speaker 6: Black eye.
Speaker 3: Clark, I.
Speaker 6: Espinosa, I.
Speaker 7: Flynn I.
Speaker 6: Learned. Cashman I can eat. Lopez. All right, Ortega. Sussman I'm sorry. Mr. President, I ten I's.
Speaker 1: Ten I's. 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 45. Change the zoning classification for 10200 Smith Road, commonly referred to as the Sand Creek Open Space at 9507 East 35th Avenue, commonly referred to as the Prairie Uplands Park
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article XI, Chapter 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to the administration of tax refund payments for elderly and disabled persons.
Amends Chapter 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to clarify and update eligibility and payment requirements for the citywide Payments to the Elderly and Disabled Persons Program. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-15-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03132017_17-0045
|
Speaker 1: Yeah. Councilors reconvene. We have one public hearing this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home address. If you're here to answer any questions when your name is called, come to the podium and state your name and know that you're available for questions of council. Speakers have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the top the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members as a whole. Please refrain from profane and obscene speech director comments the Council as a whole and refrain from individual and personal attacks. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 45 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill 45 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. Let's see here. It has been moving for a second. It has been moved and singing it. The public hearing from Council Bill 45 is open. May we have the staff report? Jeff Hurt Community Planning and Development.
Speaker 5: So yes. Jeff Hurt With Community Planning and development here to present on case number 2016, I'd ask 000 to see these are two properties that make up about 150 acres that are city owned and Council District eight. So it's located on the southwest corner of Smith Road in Havana as part of the Stapleton Development Plan. And the two properties together, they sort of straddle the same creek, Sand Creek to the north and south, but there are a total of about 150 acres. So the property owner is actually the city. So the city recently acquired this property in November 2015, and the request is to change the zoning from OSB, which is open space B, which is for privately owned parks and open space to OSA, which is for explicitly for city owned open space. So the purpose of the U.S. aid district, which is what the request is for, is, like I said specifically for has a lot of the same sort of intent as the OSB districts. But OSA is specifically for four parks that are owned operator maintained by the city. And as the property is currently zoned OSB with the recent city acquisition, it became inconsistent with the zoning since it's in the city hands. The subject properties around the area to the south is the Stapleton development area residential mostly and to the north and east you see the zoning that reflects the industrial nature of the area and then you have the railroad tracks to the north as well. And then some images from the subject property. See a variety of things going on on the property, including the urban urban garden at Stapleton to the north of the creek and to the south is almost all open space and recreation. Planning Board voted to approve this seven nothing on January 4th of this year and has gone through looting. And here we are tonight. So I won't go through each of the criteria. Certainly more detail in your staff report. But these are the plans that we looked at on the screen here. And I wanted to highlight some of the findings in the staff report leading to the recommendation of approval. One is, like I said, to as a reason for the rezoning, is to align the zoning with the current ownership. Going from private to public hands. She'll skip through.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 5: And so another main reason I wanted to highlight as far as a justifying circumstance is the change condition on the properties, which is the city acquisition from First City and Stapleton to the city. And that is the change condition that sort of reflects the need to go to OSA and not OSPF. So this is just repeating kind of what we've already said. So CPD does recommend approval of the request for a number of reasons. Be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Speaker 1: Are you done?
Speaker 5: I'm done. Oh.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 5: More details, certainly, if you want to.
Speaker 1: No, no, that's. That's great. We have one speaker for tonight. I want to bring up Mark Taber.
Speaker 5: Well, yes.
Speaker 1: What's going on, guys?
Speaker 5: Yes. I'm Mark Taber, assistant director for Planning for Parks and Recreation. And I came tonight to just answer any questions that you might have about the subject parcel. It's part of Prairie Uplands and Westerly Creek Park Unit and we're pretty excited to be transferring this property. And, and again, I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 1: Mr. Taber, you can have a seat. This concludes our speakers for the evening. Are there any questions by members of Council? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Mark, could you tell us what Parcs might be planning in the way of integrating, if at all, this space into Central Park in Stapleton because it connects along Westerly Creek?
Speaker 5: That's right. We have an existing trail that has just been completed. The Prairie Uplands Park has just been completed that also contains this regional the regional trail for Sand Creek. And so it's it's a marvelous new part of the park system. And this is the portion of the the site that is on the south side of the Great Sand Creek. The other portion, about 100 acres to the north, is going to remain. But in its existing condition, it contains the urban farm, established a partner organization there and there, farming and and animal husbandry operation. It also includes our north east district maintenance facility on a portion of it. And then there's other areas that are that are unimproved open space, and those are going to remain.
Speaker 7: And is this a compatible? Is the urban farm and the maintenance center a compatible use under this under this zoning change? Yes, it is.
Speaker 5: It's our understanding it's allowed.
Speaker 7: Okay. Is there anything different that OS A allows it to be?
Speaker 5: Does not the OCA actually gives the the council a certain amount of additional oversight for any development that exceeds a certain a certain square footage, actually. So the OSA is is even a little bit more restricted. I like that speed.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 7: If you wouldn't.
Speaker 6: Mind staying there, Mark.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 7: So who owned the property before.
Speaker 6: Denver purchased it?
Speaker 5: Well, it was it was, of course, originally Denver Airport. Stapleton Airport property. It transferred to Stapleton Development Corporation, which was the the entity that that would transfer property to the master developer and or the city. In this case, the land came from development, from SDC, from Stapleton.
Speaker 7: So it was never under the control of urban drainage in flood control district.
Speaker 5: No. And actually urban drainage in flood control district is does not own land. It only manages properties for drainage and managing wastewater.
Speaker 6: So did we get a discount from the air?
Speaker 5: I discount. I think we bought it for a buck.
Speaker 3: Oh, we did? Yeah.
Speaker 7: Okay, that that's.
Speaker 5: That's a pretty good discount.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Are there any.
Speaker 6: Proposals to put any structures.
Speaker 7: On the site, on the property?
Speaker 5: No additional structure, although the the urban farm establishment is looking at a at a small greenhouse to to complement their programing. We're poised to spend upwards of $750,000 to bring the old FAA building that they use for their classroom and their administrative purposes up to a standard that's commensurate with the uses that they put it to. And so we're going to make some investments there, but no new structures, just improvements to bring existing structures up to grade.
Speaker 6: So what's the total amount of.
Speaker 2: Acreage of all the abutting.
Speaker 6: Parkland.
Speaker 2: Including the total?
Speaker 7: I heard somebody mentioned a hundred acres.
Speaker 2: Is that is.
Speaker 6: That this in its.
Speaker 5: Entirety? 100 acres. 100 acres? Is it just the portion that's to the north of of Sand Creek? The whole the whole I think rezoning includes some of the improved parkland to the south of San Creek that Jeff described, which was the larger parcel of 200 hundred. The total is about 150 acres total. So yeah, the the one to the north is 101 to the south as well.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 7: I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember take it, Councilman Espinosa. So the acreage that's getting red zoned and I'm sorry, because we've talked about this a lot through different things. Is it dedicated parkland or is there a plan to dedicate it as parkland?
Speaker 5: It. There would be a plan to. I think if it's eligible for designation, it would be considered to be added as designated parkland. I that's that's our our policy going forward.
Speaker 0: But no sort of timetable or practical plan in place.
Speaker 1: For what needs to be done to make that happen.
Speaker 5: I can I can get back to you with that with a more definitive time frame. I think there's a there's a number of properties that are set for designation in this next wave. And I can let you know when this one is scheduled.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then my next question I think might be for Broadwell. So I'll wait till he's done deliberating here in the sidebar. Well, I'll ask it and then I'll repeat it. Well, NASIR, you mentioned that the council has some additional oversight in OSA. DAVID Does that council or any attorney, city attorney does that oversight that he's and he's mentioning there? Does that go? Does that remain if the property were to be designated as Parkland? Namely Services. So OSA is property. It's own from B to A when the property is owned by the city. And that designation just means that the manager of Parks and Recreation makes final determinations with respect to uses and structures. So I'm not sure if what the Parks representatives said was accurate about council's role. They're more akin to CPD, except the manager in that situation has has the authority over structures and uses. And I'm glad you said it that way because that's that was my understanding is basically one that once it becomes a sort of city owned open space, it becomes under the falls under the manager of parks purview on on issues of structures and land use. David Brower, did you want to weigh in on that?
Speaker 3: Yes. And Mike, I might kick it back to Mr. Taber because there was a separate law adopted at the same time as the 2010 zoning code was adopted. That does create special prerogatives in city council to approve structures over and above the language that Mr. Lucero was quoting in the zoning code. And and I believe, Councilman, to your question that that goes as equally to City Park as it would to this property. And it was part of the whole conversation we had at the time about creating special zone district categories for parks. They used to be like an r-1 and standard zoned there six. But we created a special zoned district. As Mr. Lucero indicated, vested a lot of authority in the manager of parks to manage the land. But Councilwoman Robb was very involved in getting this extra layer of council oversight related to structures of a significant size. And it looks like you may have that in your hand.
Speaker 5: I do. I do. Section 39, Dash 211 Building Plan required, which essentially calls for, I think, council review of of any structure over 3000 square feet.
Speaker 3: And as Mr. Taber indicated, that's over in the park section of the code, not in the zoning code, which is which is one reason we always have to remind ourselves how it got there. But it's kind of an extra part of what was brokered by Councilwoman Robin in 2010.
Speaker 1: So do either the parks rule or or the existing zoning code require a public hearing when a structure is being used.
Speaker 3: Built over 3000 square feet? Since Mr. Tabor is holding the law, having reviewed the law recently, Councilman, so I'm not sure about detail.
Speaker 5: Sure. We'll review it.
Speaker 1: It doesn't. But I just want confirmation of that. So because that that to me is is is sort of a lingering concern, maybe what Councilwoman Robb had done in the past. Well, well-intended didn't go quite far enough, because our matters of land use that come before council do have a required public hearing where. But once we're in this OSA zone district. Certain sorts of redevelopment under 3000 square feet purely parks over 3000 square feet us but none of it with a public hearing except for maybe a courtesy public hearing. And I don't even know if that that council review actually comes to comes as a bill or an ordinance. So it's a it's a it's a concern that I just want my colleagues to understand things. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, for bringing that up. Looks like we have no other speakers. So this concludes the question portion of the public hearing comments by members of council. Councilman Herndon thing Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 5: Don't have any comments. I would urge my colleagues to support this.
Speaker 1: All right. Any other comments? All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Rocco. Herndon, I.
Speaker 6: Cashman. I can eat right.
Speaker 0: Lopez I.
Speaker 6: Ortega I. Black all. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 6: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Tin I's Council Bill 45 has passed, seeing no other business before this body was then adjourned. Thank you.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 10200 Smith Road, commonly referred to as Sand Creek Open Space and 9507 East 35th Avenue, commonly referred to as Prairie Uplands Park in Stapleton.
Rezones property located at 10200 Smith Road and 9507 East 35th Avenue from OS-B to OS-A, open space recreation to open space parks, in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-24-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03062017_17-0304
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Our third proclamation tonight is. Councilman Espinosa, will you read Proclamation 304?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. Proclamation number 17 0304 in support of national native HIV AIDS Awareness Day and National Women and Girls HIV Awareness AIDS Awareness Day. Whereas, more than 1.2 million Americans are living with HIV and more than 50,000 become infected with HIV every year, one in four between the ages of 13 and 24. Whereas, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment at the end of 2015, more than 13,000 people were reported to be living with HIV in the state of Colorado. And. WHEREAS, HIV and AIDS has affected Denver more than any other county in the state of Colorado, reporting the most persons living with the disease. Most HIV or AIDS related deaths. And 36% of new HIV infections in 2015. And. WHEREAS, the continued spread of HIV in the American Indian and native Alaska, mainly Alaskan native communities, poses a significant risk to the health and well-being of these communities. They have the third, third highest rate of new HIV infections in Colorado from 2011 to 2015. And. WHEREAS, when compared with other ethnic ethnic groups, American Indians in Alaska Natives are ranked fifth in estimated estimated return, mean an estimated rates of HIV diagnosis and have poorer survival rates after an HIV diagnosis. HIV infection was the ninth leading cause of death among American Indians and Alaska Native youth, aged 25 to 34 in 2014. And. WHEREAS, approximately one in four people living with HIV in the U.S. are women. Cases, despite cases, disproportionately affect African-American and Latino women who represent 29% of all women in the United States, but account for 78% of HIV cases among women. And. WHEREAS, the city and county of Denver recognizes the continued work to bring HIV and AIDS awareness by groups such as Cafe Cultura Children's Hospital Immune Immunodeficiency Program, Denver Indian Family in Resource Center, Servicios de la Raza, Sisters of Color, United for Education, the Empowerment Program and the GLB Community Center of Colorado . Whereas HIV it and now therefore it be complaints are therefore be proclaimed by the city and county, the Council, the city and county of Denver, Section one. The Denver City Council proclaims March 10th, 2017, to be known as the National Women and Girls HIV AIDS Awareness Day and March 20, 2017 as National Native HIV AIDS Awareness Day . Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to Café Cultura, the Denver Indian Family and Resource Center, and the Sisters of Color. United for Education.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Your motion to adopt so moved. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilmen Espinosa.
Speaker 7: I just was I was honored that Councilman Lopez asked me to read this. I was shocked and stunned when I did those statistics about the African-American and Latino women who represent 29% of all women in the United States. They account for 78% of HIV cases among women. I'm not one to sort of go too much into national politics, but I did last year. And, you know, we just had the the proclamation honoring Saint Patty's Day parade. And last year I did mention how the Irish were persecuted people. And then I sort of warned about what was looking like a trend in the United States at that time that is sort of come to fruition to some degree on discrimination. And so I hope that we see we work to see these statistics reduced, but at a time when groups such as Planned Parenthood and funding for women's health is targeted and we've already seen these these numbers disproportionately affect minority women. I'm worried that this is going to go the opposite direction. So with that, I'm just I'm glad that this this the reading of this proclamation fell into my hands.
Speaker 1: So. Thank you, Councilman. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Rocco Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I Herndon.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Can each new assessment? I black.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, i.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please. Because the voting announced the results.
Speaker 3: Nine Eyes.
Speaker 1: Nine eyes. Proclamation 304 has been adopted. Councilman Espinosa, is there someone you'd like to invite up to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I'd like to invite on a cruise in Alvin, Chile to receive the proclamation. And family. Yeah. Take advantage. Yeah. Look, until I shot someone dosage. I surely don't Oliver. She will you. Subject cannon slander teaching position hunting nationality audition injustice che Qatar aid peninsula. Hello, councilmembers. My name is Alvin Chee. I am the mayor or Navajo from Arizona. I am born to the bitter water, the honeycombed rock people, and born to the bitter water clan people of my tribe. I am a health care program manager with the JLP Community Center here in Denver, and I want to give my gratitude to Councilmember Espinosa and Councilmember Lopez and the council itself for passing this proclamation today. The stats you've read is, although profound, is becoming more manageable these days. However, our goal as a community is to bring that number down to zero. And with your help today, you brought that to light. Bringing this problem to the council to light. And with your help, we're able to reach out to the community at large to help in this awareness. Thank you so much, council members. And again. Good evening. I'd like to thank the Council for considering this proclamation. I think we were talking about it. I think this might be the fifth year that the Council has passed this proclamation as part of a community effort to bring greater awareness around HIV and AIDS to to the native community here in Denver, as well as women and girls. And is part of a larger program that we've been organizing called Rise Up the second Friday of March every year. And we collaborate with a lot of different organizations that are listed in the proclamation to provide free HIV and gonorrhea and chlamydia testing and as part of a community celebration, to be able to recognize, obviously, ways that we can protect our community from from these illnesses, from these infections, but also to be able to celebrate those people who are who are continuing to live and thrive with these these these illnesses. And so we really want to welcome you all if you have the time this coming Friday from 630 to 930 over half of ninth and Lopez go at the space of the Denver inner parish LA academia. Our home Catholic will do the so. We have free food, free HIV testing and we definitely welcome the community to attend. And it's something that I think is continuing with the energy that has built the last couple of years, including recently with Native people being more present in the national conversation and you know, example being the struggle at Standing Rock and the fight against the Dakota Access pipeline and to divest from those banks that are funding it. And so I think it's definitely a representation of people, Native people, being present and visible in the public eye. So I just wanted to say that much and thank you for for passing this proclamation.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. That brings us to our resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in support of National Native HIV/AIDS Awareness Day & National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03062017_16-1202
|
Speaker 1: Now I'll do a recap. Under resolutions, we have nothing called out under bills for introduction, we have nothing called out under bills for final consideration. Councilman Flynn has called out Council Bill 1202 for a comment. Councilwoman Kennedy has called out Council Bill 156 for a vote and Councilman Cashman has called out Council Bill 153 for a vote . Under pending, we have nothing called out and miss anything. All right, Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? Councilman Flynn, go ahead with your comment on Council Bill 1202.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem Council Bill 12 zero two Series of 2016 consists of several amendments to the Denver Code of Ethics. About every 2 to 3 years, the ethics code has had amendments made to it. But this is the first time in 16 years that some fairly substantive issues are going to be addressed. Primarily, it is that in place of the limit on meals and event tickets that was adopted in 2001 after a very, very, very contentious 18 months of debate and division on the council finally being mediated by Mayor Webb. There was in place a limitation that consisted of the number of times and the number was four, that people could accept a meal or a ticket to an event from a person who had over whom we had direct official action. What we're doing here is bringing the Denver Code of Ethics into line with every other city and state code of ethics that we could find on the task force last year to put a dollar cap instead of a number of times. So we're using a dollar cap of $300 on an event ticket and other things that fall under those limitations on the task force. There was a lot of debate about this. My colleagues, as you know, there were a number of people, myself included, as a former journalist, who would rather have seen just enhanced transparency and no limitation on the dollar amount. And that has as if I were still a reporter, I'd love to have that in place because I'd love to write a story that said, you know, Councilman Flynn accepts trip to the Bahamas for $10,000, but it's better for the public good. Actually, I wouldn't rather see that story just to clear that up.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 4: But it's not good for public confidence in this body and what we do. It's not sufficient that we go to bed each night knowing in our hearts that we have behaved and conducted ourselves ethically. We have. And but that's not enough. It's important that the people of Denver go to bed each night feeling the same. And by putting a dollar limit. On the amount that we can accept from people with whom we do business is the way to do it. I wanted to thank a number of folks. I want to thank, first of all, the council member right next to me on my right, Councilwoman Canete, who has helped me through this process. It's been very valuable to me. Thank you very much. I want to thank council members Ortega, who is not here, Gilmore and Black for the input that they gave me that I think improve this. And I also want to thank our clerk and recorder, Deborah Johnson. In January, we passed amendments to the disclosure requirements that now require us to keep track of every penny. That we received from someone who has business with the city. Under the old rules, the $25 was the threshold. But what we did was we limited our reporting to people with whom we do business. But starting from the first penny. And because we now must keep track of that, what this ordinance does, what these amendments do is it just says, stop when you hit $300. So with that and also, I should thank the task force that worked all last year on this consist of the city attorney's office, some other city employees and outside stakeholders, including the League of Women Voters, Ethics Watch and Colorado Common Cause. So with that, Mr. President, I would ask all my colleagues to join me in voting yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flint. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Yeah. I just wanted to thank Councilman Flynn for champion this and doing that work with the task force and with council and committee. I think this took a long time. I mean, took quite a bit of time before, you know, this could have been presented to council some time ago. But it it did sit in committee. We did talk about it and we debated some of the points. And I think this, along with a whole host of things that we vote on and pass and opine on, are benefited from that dialog and and may not be where it originated. But I do think that that it it was improved by the process. And I just wanted to thank the Councilman Flynn for having done that that work, because I know it wasn't easy at times. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Flynn, I just want to clarify, you had said asking everybody for your vote, but you're still okay with us going on the block vote. You want to call it out for voting no.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Code of Ethics, and making conforming amendments to the Article V of Chapter 2, D.R.M.C. concerning financial disclosure requirements.
Approves amending the Denver Code of Ethics. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-21-17. This bill was approved for filing by title only by Council President Brooks.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03062017_17-0156
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Flynn, I just want to clarify, you had said asking everybody for your vote, but you're still okay with us going on the block vote. You want to call it out for voting no. Okay. All right. Madam Secretary, if you could please put the next item on our screens. And, Councilwoman Blackwell, you put Council Bill 156 on the floor for passage.
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr. President pro tem. I move that council. Bill 17 DASH 156. Be.
Speaker 1: Ordered published a final consideration in due pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Excellent. It has been moved. Can I get a second? All right. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. We had some discussion about this bill last week, so I won't repeat that. We had two different bills last week. One was a contract to make the investment with the developer, and the second was the contingency fund allocation to transfer the money in the budget. So that's a two reading bill. This is the second reading of that bill. And I continue to have concerns both about the fact that we do not have a direct contract with the retailer as well as the fact that we. Do you not have high enough quality, full time jobs for me to feel like this is an appropriate investment of this level from this particular fund? So with that, I will vote again this week to decline to support this. And thank you for your time, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I wasn't here last week, but. And she only touched on it. But I do agree with everything that Councilwoman Cannick mentioned last week and then the structural portion portion that she mentioned this week as well. The. The the and I wish people actually were able to have heard the public comment. There was a pretty a pretty harsh criticism of this that I think deserves to some degree, some bit of airwave airtime. I wish I could speak as well on the subject as that person did. Yes. In my past life before I was here, I was an architect and I was involved in a bit of urban planning projects and things like that. And so, um, you know, there's a lot of, if this was in fact an eight to 6 to 8 year project effort to get to this point, I would have expected a far more thorough and robust sort of understanding and explanation on how this really is the catalyst that we need for the 16th Street Mall. And so there is a large effort. A lot of public money goes into that corridor, and I'm just not convinced that this is it. And so for that reason, I'll be voting in opposition as well, because when we make a public investment like this, we should be getting good, stable jobs and a thriving community as well. Too much money going into this corridor without adequate support for the the why. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, councilman. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 3: Can each new Sussman.
Speaker 2: I black I.
Speaker 3: Espinosa. No. Flynn Gilmore. I.
Speaker 7: Herndon, i.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Eat ice. Two nays.
Speaker 1: Ayes, two nays. Council Bill 156 has passed. Madam Secretary, can you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Black. Will you put please put Council Bill 153 on the floor for passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the General Contingency Fund to the General Government Special Revenue Fund.
Approves a $4 million supplemental appropriation from the City’s General Fund Contingency to the Office of Economic Development to support the Business Incentive Fund’s support of a general merchandise mass retail store on the 16th Street Mall at 1601 California Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-21-17. This bill was approved for late filing by Council President Brooks.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03062017_17-0153
|
Speaker 1: Ayes, two nays. Council Bill 156 has passed. Madam Secretary, can you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Black. Will you put please put Council Bill 153 on the floor for passage.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President pro tem I move that council bill 17 dash 153 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman. Yes, I have a question. Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Is Angelica Sears in the house?
Speaker 1: It's kind of like I walked.
Speaker 4: Down the red carpet. And so last week when this was put before us on first reading, I asked if there was a response from the fire department, and you indicated that there was. And then we found out that there was a little bit of confusion there. Can you go through that.
Speaker 1: For me, please?
Speaker 2: So, yeah, last week I did say that there was a response from the fire department. So this is what happened. So one of our agents, John Reynolds, he called Dave Clark of the fire department to discuss this very specific vacation and asked him if he had any other comments about this vacation. He indicated that he had no other comments. So what John Reynolds did then is follow up with an email saying this is just an email confirming that you have no other comments. He did not respond to that. What I was referring to or what I misspoke on is that they did have a conversation.
Speaker 1: Okay. And can you describe the inn in case.
Speaker 7: Of a fire on on how.
Speaker 4: The fire department would approach that particular situation in the alley?
Speaker 2: You know, to be honest, I cannot speak to that.
Speaker 4: I believe one of the representatives can. Good evening. Council members Brian Connolly with the law firm of Art and Johnson representing unico properties. So the requirement of the fire code is that there be two points of ingress or egress access to the building. And so for any one of those buildings is located along the alley, you've got the front door, which is either on Swasey or on Wynkoop, and then you've got the backdoor which is on the alley as you move down the alley. And I only know this because I was in a meeting with Dave Clark from the fire department on this on November 3rd of 2015. And so as you move down the alley, there's actually a bridge over the alley as you get closer to our client's property. So a hook and ladder truck actually cannot access all the way down the alley. A hook and ladder truck can only go as far as the bridge over the alley. So you still have two points of ingress and egress from each of those buildings. You have the point that's on the front side on either wing Cooper wasI, and then you have the point that's on the back side. So a hook and ladder truck could drive down the alley. It would then back out once they're done fighting the fire. But they do have access to that to that building. I also just to follow up on on Mukasey's statement, we also have a letter dated October 3rd of 2016 from Scott Briscoe, the chief building official, which confirms that the vacation of the alley would meet the requirements of the building and fire code. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right thing. No other comments. I'm comfortable with passing that through. Okay, so no, you don't need a vote anymore, not a secretary, since it's already been moved and seconded and put on the floor. What do we need to do if we're going to move it to the black vote?
Speaker 3: We're doing the first and second degree. Then we can cancel it and just put it with the black vote. So that would be Councilmember Black in Herndon.
Speaker 1: Any objections from Councilwoman Black or Councilman Herndon?
Speaker 7: No. No.
Speaker 1: All right. So go ahead. Move that back to the black vote. Um. They think that all our items that were called out, all of their bills for introduction are ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Kels 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 Blackwell, you put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor.
Speaker 2: I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 17 Dash 015 117 Dash 022 517 Dash 022 717 Dash 022 817 Dash 022 917 Dash 022 317. Dash 013 117. Dash 013 217. Dash 167 17. Dash 022 117. Dash 2023 217. Dash 022 216. Dash 1202 17 Dash one 4317. Dash zero one 5317. Dash zero 155.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 2: Eye.
Speaker 3: Espinosa, i.
Speaker 4: Flynn, i.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman. I can each.
Speaker 2: New.
Speaker 3: Assessment.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight, the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Since there are no public hearings, and if there are no objections from members of council, we will not take a recess this evening.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of an alley bounded by 15th Street, Wynkoop Street, Wazee Street and the Cherry Creek, with reservations.
Vacates a portion of the public alley bounded by 15th Street and the Cherry Creek and Wynkoop Street and Wazee Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-14-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02272017_17-0156
|
Speaker 3: 161 Bill for an ordinance of the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for preexisting small zone lots to 77 bill for an ordinance providing for an extension of approximately two months of an existing moratorium enacted by Ordinance 20160498 series of 2016 prohibiting the use of the Denver zoning code. Preexisting small zone lot parking exemption for certain projects.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman, can each. We need a motion to suspend the rules on council to allow for the introduction of a late filing.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the rules of procedure be suspended to allow for the introduction of Council Bill 156 approving a $4 million supplemental appropriation to the Office of Economic Development to support the business incentive funds. Support of a general merchandise small retail store on the 16th Street Mall at 1601 California Street.
Speaker 0: All right, it has. It's been moving second it. Thank you. Councilwoman Denise, do you want to make comments? And I'm happy to make comments as well.
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I am making this motion as chair of the Finance and Governance Committee, where this bill moved through with our intention that it be on the floor today. Due to staff miscommunication, it was not filed in time, but I believe it was the committee's intent that it be on the floor tonight. And so that is why I'm making this motion count.
Speaker 0: Very well done. Councilwoman Camille, I think, summarized it. This is just a mistake. And it was a council's full intention in the Finance Committee to make sure this was on the floor. And so we need a unanimous vote to suspend these rules and make sure that we can have the conversation on the floor right now. So it has been moved. And second, I say, Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Fred. Just a quickly, could you tell us what the mistake was or what occurred and how that can be avoided in the future? Because these these kinds of votes are very rare.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I believe this is between OED and the Department of Finance. And one department didn't know when the other department was supposed to file and not file. So this is actually coming out of the Department of Finance. However, the bill is located in OED. So they they know they've apologized. And so we're moving forward with a thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. It's been moved and segmented. Okay. So we put resolutions 163. It should be 156.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. This should be resolution 156, for the record. There was a mistake on a typo on this and it is correct on our screens. 156 So, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Point Are we, we're voting on suspending the rules right now. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yep.
Speaker 0: Okay. Council members, again, this is Council Bill 156 and we're voting on suspending these rules has been moved and seconded. Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Can each. LOPEZ All right, new black clerk. All right.
Speaker 1: Flynn I.
Speaker 3: Gillmor I heard in. Cashman. I Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 3: Nine eyes.
Speaker 0: Nine eyes. That Resolutions 156 may be introduced. Madam Secretary, you will read the resolution title.
Speaker 3: From Finance and governance 156 Bill for an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the General Contingency Fund to the General Government Special Revenue Fund.
Speaker 0: All right, councilmembers, this is your last opportunity to call it an item. Councilman Clark, will you please make the motions this evening?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right, I'll do a quick recap. Under resolutions. Councilman Flynn has called out Resolution 163 for a comment. Is that 163 or 156? Okay. All right. For comment under Bill for introduction, I've called out Council Bill 153 for a vote. I've called out Counsel Bill 161 to hold in committee for one week until March six under Bill's for final consideration. We have nothing under pending. We have nothing matter. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Mr. President, I apologize. I would like to have 163 and 156 for a vote. They could be together in a block. And I because of making the late filing motion, I kind of forgot to do the link through them, and I apologize for that. If we need to vote on them separately, that's. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, can we put 156 and 163 in a block, please?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: All right, great. We'll make a note of that. Okay. Madam Secretary, please put up the first one. 163. Councilman Flynn, go ahead and make your comment.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. 163 is an agreement between the Office of Economic Development and a development entity on the 16th Street Mall to develop or redevelop the old California Mall property right at 16th in California. And I remember it as the old food court. You go up to the second floor, and when I saw this come across, it gave me a lot of heartburn, Mr. President, because it would bring a new a very good tenant to the mall, one that I think it would be great, wonderful addition catalytic to what I call upto our sort of answer to LoDo. This is up doe and but it was target and I have nothing against Target Corporation. Personally I shop there on occasion, but as some folks may recall, Target had a very wonderful outlet in my district at Sheridan and Evans. And when when Target opened in Belmar, in the Belmar redevelopment in Lakewood, they closed the Target in my district. That alone doesn't give me the heartburn because that's a business decision. But when they left and sold it to an operator who now operates a 99 cent store there, I say we don't even get a dollar store down in my district. We get $0.99 store. They put a deed restriction on the property that it could not be used for 20 years for a general merchandise retailer of 50,000 square feet or greater. And I know from my predecessor, Councilwoman Jeanie Fox, that on at least three occasions a national retailer has looked at that property and has walked away from redeveloping it because of the deed restriction. However, in the in the course of dealing with this, I was able to meet with guard properties, which is the owner of the California Mall and would be the actual entity with whom we're partnering here, not Target. And I'm very happy to say that they've genuinely outreach to us and they have helped us down in southwest Denver to do market research, to identify potential retailers and possibly even to look at the property as a potential redevelopment. So for the first time in the five or six years since Target left there, we have some we have some interest. I understand the property may also even be on the market now. So given the genuine promise to continue working with us. Mr. President, I will vote yes on this and and plan on that cooperation continuing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I have been very aware of how hard the downtown community has worked to attract retail to this location. It has been a conversation as long as I have been on the council. Not maybe not this particular location, but the vicinity of the 16th Street Mall. And so I don't take lightly the concerns about how to make downtown an attractive destination, to fulfill the needs of the residents and the workers who are downtown. And, you know, I have not, without some consternation, supported some types of redevelopment assistance in this city's history that have involved retail. And, you know, particularly with tax increment financing, it's never been easy. Each deal I take one by one. But overall, I have great concern when we are using city dollars to subsidize retail. It is a non economically sustainable job in our city. For the most part, the average jobs at this site will be 25 hours a week, which is not a full time salary. So even if the wage is slightly above the minimum wage, when you add up the hours, it will keep most families below the poverty line. And we as a city end up having to step in then with childcare assistance and health care assistance and other things. And that's not unique to this location and it's not unique to this retailer. But I do have concerns about using the Business Investment Fund for this purpose. The city has been very disciplined in using the business investment fund, almost with the exception of one other retail job, a retail investment for jobs that are higher than the median wage. And I've appreciated that discipline. It is what kept me supportive of this fund for the period of time. I really struggled with this one and really looked at each a piece of the deal. And I, you know, I would have maybe almost gotten there, but the fact that this agreement is not directly with the retailer and does not give us any privity of contract with them, we do have a history of retailers.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the General Contingency Fund to the General Government Special Revenue Fund.
Approves a $4 million supplemental appropriation from the City’s General Fund Contingency to the Office of Economic Development to support the Business Incentive Fund’s support of a general merchandise mass retail store on the 16th Street Mall at 1601 California Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-21-17. This bill was approved for late filing by Council President Brooks.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02272017_17-0163
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. And because we have a point of order here, we probably need to put one, 163 and 156 on the floor and vote them in a block. So is that correct? Okay. President Pro tem, please.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 163 be adopted and council Bill 156 be ordered published in a block.
Speaker 0: All right. Now, if there's still folks who want to speak, you can chime in all our time in right now because this is this happens to be in the fine District nine. And I happen to be one of the individuals working with Downtown Partnership and other leaders in the city to activate our mall. And I really respect my colleague, Councilwoman Kenney, each for her comments and Councilman Lopez for his well-stated comments. I just want to say that what is a business incentive fund for if we're not incentivizing businesses that will never locate in the downtown core to do right like this is this is the exact reason we want to do something like this. Target is a suburban model development business. They would never come down to to the urban core and make a development work without some complex financing. And so council mechanics is correct in that this is with the developer. We get to do an adaptive reuse project here, which is is very well supported by the community. And I encourage individuals to walk down 16th in California and see and walk past this area that is not activated. And we have a pretty good track record in Office of Economic Development in the city that when we invest public dollars, our return on private dollars is substantial. But it's not just about the dollars. It's about the connectivity. It's about the activation. And I believe that this is going to be an incredible opportunity. And I encourage our my colleagues to support this. And I encourage members of the public to go down and see where this location is. And to Councilman Lopez's point, I represent half of my district is a food desert. And I hope that this is a precedent that we are bringing. We're using public dollars to bring healthy food to communities in the future. So I just want to be on record saying that it's been moved and seconded both 156 and 163. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 5: Each name.
Speaker 3: Lopez.
Speaker 6: I knew.
Speaker 3: Black eye. Clark. Hi. Flynn.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. Cashman. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close the voting and not the results.
Speaker 3: Sorry. I think there's one person missing.
Speaker 0: We've lost some council members up here.
Speaker 3: Here we go. Seven eyes, one knee.
Speaker 0: Okay. Seven eyes one. Nay, are you? Did you get my vote in there? It should be eight eyes. One nay.
Speaker 5: Okay, let's see.
Speaker 3: No, I did not. So, eight eyes, one nail. It will be corrected.
Speaker 0: Okay. Eight eyes, one nay. 153 has been ordered, published and one 5163 has been adopted. Is that correct? Yes, Madam Secretary. 156 sorry. Yup. Has been ordered published. 163 has been adopted. All right, Madam Secretary, we put the next item on the screen Council Bill 161.
Speaker 5: It's hard to find.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and SIXTEEN CAL LLC to provide goods and services to the public and other customers located at 1601 California Street.
Approves a Business Incentive Fund (BIF) contract with 16 CAL, LLC for twenty years and for $4 million for the completion and operation of a strategic retail store on the 16th Street Mall at 1601 California Street in Council District 9 (OEDEV- 201733017-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-20-17. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-15-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02272017_17-0153
|
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah? Mm hmm. Madam Secretary. Let's do 153.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: This is the. This is the vacation in the alley. Okay. I've called out council about 153 regarding the eviction of Ali on 15th Street. Wynkoop Plaza in Church Creek for a vote. Councilman, Clerk, will you please put Council Bill 153 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 153 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: All right, it has been moved. We need a second. All right. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. So this is a vacation. It's Kalispell 153. It's Vacation Alley, a portion of behind 15th Street and one Cooper Massey Street and Cherry Creek. And there has been a a ton of consternation around this by my neighbors. And I wanted to give the folks who are proposing this alley vacation the opportunity to speak to this and answer some pretty direct questions that we've been receiving from the public. So. Peter Aw, come on up here, introduce yourselves and then please, let's bring this up so everybody can see it as well. Members of council. You want to go to your audiovisual? Oh, great. We have a. Rather large screen in the back. That's going to do it for us. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Council members Brian Connolly with the law firm of Otten Johnson Robinson and Regan Eddy. And we represent Unico Properties, which is the owner of the property. The properties on either side of the alley. I'm actually using the cursor, which you can't see very well. We can show you all you can. Okay, good. To show you the properties. So it's the two surface parking lots on either side of the alley.
Speaker 0: And can you zoom in just a little bit to that picture?
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: One more time. Great. Okay. Excellent. So orient us, explain what the project is seeking. And then I have a couple of questions for you.
Speaker 7: Sure, Mr. President. So Unico Properties is seeking to construct a new building which will go across these two service parking lots. The building is anticipated, just for your information, is anticipated to be a six storey building with a residential penthouse on top of it. And it will also have a feature, a pedestrian promenade along the creek, sort of in the area that I'm moving the cursor which will run between Swasey and Wynkoop streets and will extend the current pedestrian promenade that exists sort of above the retaining wall on properties all the way down to Del Gainey. Okay. We're not going to be doing anything to to change the ramp that goes down to the creek. This is about a 15 to 20 foot drop off this retaining wall. And so what we're seeking from you this evening is a vacation of this alley, or at least this portion of the alley terminate right here. So it would allow the building to go all the way across between wasI and Wynkoop.
Speaker 0: What how many feet is the portion of the alley you're requesting to vacate?
Speaker 7: It's about 1500 square feet.
Speaker 0: 1500 square feet, yes. Okay. A couple of questions. So there's a lot of concerns as you go into that alley right there. That alley folks can access the alley all the way to the river. And folks are saying that you guys are shutting off that alley is going to become unsafe. So is that private property right now currently where the parking lot is?
Speaker 7: It is.
Speaker 0: So is the alley shut off anyway? Are people just accessing it?
Speaker 7: It's a good question. The alley is shut off anyway. So right now the alley is has a dead end condition. The alley goes all the way down to the retaining wall and dead ends right here.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 7: Right now, there are chains on either side of the alley. So you could not, for example, drive a car out the southwestern end of the alley because either side of it is private property.
Speaker 0: And we also are hearing that you all are proposing an L-shape to to allow private access out the alley on to I believe that is was he is that true as well?
Speaker 7: That's not correct. So we've not we have not proposed an L-shaped. We've proposed the alley would terminate right where the cursor is. Yeah. And then there would be a garage door there that would access the back side of the building, the building still in the design phase. So the size of the garage door to be determined, but there would be an access to the building there. So the Hollywood dead end of the building.
Speaker 0: So the city is giving you 1500 square feet. What what are you what are you giving back to the city? What are you giving back to the public?
Speaker 7: Sure. So I mentioned the pedestrian promenade. The pedestrian promenade picture.
Speaker 0: Of it, by the.
Speaker 7: Way. I do. So here's here's an image of what the building would look like from the this is the creek side. So what you see down here at the bottom is the creek. You see the pedestrian walkway along the creek, the ramp, and there would be a promenade along the creek beach again between Wynkoop Emwazi, which would total approximately 3700 square feet. The promenade would allow for, again, pedestrian access all the way across the property, as well as the concept for the building is that it would have some type of first floor retail and restaurant space. So the promenade would allow for outdoor dining or, you know, outdoor sales or, you know, whatever would be what would go on there.
Speaker 0: What and I understand that CBD or public works. One of our agencies asked for that.
Speaker 7: Correct? Cbd's for the promenade.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. And it's 3700 square feet.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: We're giving you 1500. Okay. That's a question to have. Councilman, do.
Speaker 6: You just have a question of public works if they're.
Speaker 1: Here? Yeah.
Speaker 0: Angela.
Speaker 6: I think they're just wanted a public works reviewed this request. And did you have any kind of difficulties with this request?
Speaker 5: Nos. A pretty straightforward application. And we reviewed it as we review all of our applications for vacation.
Speaker 6: Okay. So drug the use of the dead in L.A. then. Does that cause any problems for trash collection or anything like that?
Speaker 5: There's there's no there's no problems with any of that.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. Whoever prepared to answer this? So the. The building to the north. Which my understanding is, while the lot that the developer wants to build on is now access to that property is blocked off. Historically, the neighbors to the north had had that kind of open as a cut through space. Is that about right?
Speaker 7: Yes. It's our understanding from some of the neighbors that that the I think you're referring to the use of the parking lot as a cultural space. Historically, some of the neighbors had used that as a cut through space. If you're on foot, you can obviously hop the chain and walk across to Osea or Wynkoop, if you like.
Speaker 1: And the chain was down for a long time, was it not? So the tenants to the north could cut through the property there? Through that lot.
Speaker 7: The current owners owned the property for the past year and a half and the chain's been up since the current owners on the property. We actually know the former owner of the property as well. The chain sort of went down and up and so there were certainly times when the chain was down and folks could access across it. But there were also times when the chain's been up when that access has been blocked.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then I guess maybe, Angela, if there's anyone here from the fire department, so by cutting that alley off, does that present safety concerns for the people in the building to the north?
Speaker 5: So when we do these applications, they're reviewed by several utilities and several different city departments. We did not receive we did receive a letter from the fire department saying that they were okay with the configuration of what what was happening here.
Speaker 1: And what is can you describe what the access then becomes for that building to the north?
Speaker 5: So basically, this is this is a 400 foot alley which will then they're asking to vacate about 100 feet of the alley. And so it will become a 300 foot alley. You know, it'll still dead, dead end at the 300 foot mark.
Speaker 1: Okay. So they have sufficient access and egress without this.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I mean, the challenge is, is that this was platted in I think like 1879 or 59 somewhere in there. And so, I mean, this isn't something that we would historically do today, but because of the way it's platted, that's that's what we're that's what we're offering here.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Angela, could you rise again? You told me you are here and you can speak for Rob Duncanson and right of way as well. So you're knowledgeable of all that he's knowledgeable about. Okay. And he knows and you probably know that I am a map geek and an historian. So my lesson for today in question. In 1859, Boyd's survey showed this. All these lots, all dead ending at the Cherry Creek. In other words, 14th Street historically ended to the south of here. Just to disagree with Councilman Cashman and some public works folks about the direction of our downtown streets and the blocks farther north along the creek, always dead, ended at the creek and not at 14th Street. So all these have always been dead end alleys. Correct? Yes. Okay. And interestingly to me, if no one else, the three blocks, including this one, and then up to 16th and 17th between Wynkoop and OAC on Boyd survey were shown as city parks without an alley . But my understanding is that the surveyor Ebert came back and later filed the true subdivision plat and we all have these dead end alleys. Are you familiar with the historic uses on that block? If I if I asked you, for instance, were you aware that the entire frontages on Rosie and online coupe historically had been built up from lot line to lot line all the way from 15th Street to the creek? Do you know that to be true?
Speaker 5: Well, I do know that there have been several variations.
Speaker 4: And that the buildings that were there have been torn down, but they are still private property. Right. Okay. If we did not vacate the alley, the owner of the property on either side fronting on either street would be able to build from lot line to lot line.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 4: Without providing a an access out of the dead end. Right. Okay. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for that historic lesson of the fine district nine and lower downtown. What else happened in 1859? That's pertinent.
Speaker 4: William Byars established the Rocky Mountain News. Okay, and allowed and allowed me to be laid off in 2009.
Speaker 0: There's one more big event that happened.
Speaker 4: Eight years ago tomorrow.
Speaker 0: Do you know the other event that happened?
Speaker 1: I believe it was the councilman's 10th birthday.
Speaker 0: And I'm going to leave it at that. This is the wheels are off the car here. Okay. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I was going to ask the same question that Councilman Flynn did, but just to reiterate it. So if two different parties owned it, if two different parties owned each of these parking lots, they could build up to the lot line and that would the alley would still that end. So what you're talking about is just still making it a dead end alley and it's going to be shorter. Right. So my other question is the building that is sort of to the northeast that has looks like an elevated parking. Does that go over the alley? Yes. Yes, it does. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. 1859, we became a city. I just thought that was important information, but. Okay.
Speaker 4: And Uncle Dick Wooten's saloon opened.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay, I. I have another question for the. So. So, obviously, we're starting to understand a little bit that this is a private lot. And it's, you know, there's no technical qualifications for us to for me voting for this to deny it. But I am concerned about a alley that is blocked. A lot of cars go in there, met with some residents and they talked about, you know, having an alley that's going to be closed and not have that light come in. Are you guys willing to put lights in the alley to just make sure we have a well-lit alley?
Speaker 7: Yes, we are.
Speaker 0: Okay. And did you talk to the neighborhood about that?
Speaker 7: We did. We offered we offered lighting as well as that. We know that the neighbors also had some security concerns relating to vagrancy or whatnot in the alley. And we are also willing to put in security cameras and to monitor the alley.
Speaker 0: Okay. And the last question, we each have a huge, uh, I believe is a lawsuit on our, on our desk that we've been looking into. This is not a lawsuit against the city. This is a lawsuit with you and the neighbors.
Speaker 7: No, the neighbors have filed a lawsuit against both you, all the city and against us. It's in the form of Rule 106 action challenging the decision by the Lower Downtown Design Review Board to approve the maps form in context of the project. And the basic premise of the lawsuit is that the neighbors are alleging that they have a right of ingress and egress across Unicom's property and that by approving the maps form in context of the project, the Lower Downtown Design Review Board has interfered with that right of ingress and egress, as has been spoken to tonight. The neighbors do not have a right of ingress and egress across our our client's property. And so and they've never had a right of ingress or egress across our client's property. So we are currently working with your city attorney's office to defend that.
Speaker 0: Okay. But if I'm clear tonight, that lawsuit is not on this particular on council Bill 153. It's okay. All right. The it's been moved in, seconded all members of council. 153 is now on the floor. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Kenny Lopez. All right. New black. I clerk.
Speaker 0: I Flynn.
Speaker 3: I Gilmore. I cashin.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Please close the voting. Announce the results. Nine Ice nine Ice Council Bill 153 has been ordered publish Madam Secretary, put the next item on our screen, which is one I believe is 161. I move that council bill 161 be held in committee and brought back to the floor of council on Monday, March 20th, 2017.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of an alley bounded by 15th Street, Wynkoop Street, Wazee Street and the Cherry Creek, with reservations.
Vacates a portion of the public alley bounded by 15th Street and the Cherry Creek and Wynkoop Street and Wazee Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-14-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02272017_17-0161
|
Speaker 0: I Please close the voting. Announce the results. Nine Ice nine Ice Council Bill 153 has been ordered publish Madam Secretary, put the next item on our screen, which is one I believe is 161. I move that council bill 161 be held in committee and brought back to the floor of council on Monday, March 20th, 2017. It has moved it. It has been second it comments. So. Members of the public council. We had this discussion about the small lots conversation, 60 to 50 lots and trying to figure out a compromise on these. And we heard from several council members and folks in the public that there was just not enough time to consider these two competing bills put up put forward by me and our president, pro Tem Clark. And so what I am asking is that, one, we delay the first reading of this bill to March 20th, and we also extend the moratorium, and the moratorium will be voted on in a block its it's council bill 277 until May 20th. And I wanted to give everyone May 26. I want to give everyone a new date calendar of which things will take place. So tonight we will be filing a 60 day moratorium extension February 27th, on Monday, March 20th. First reading will be of the small parking lot text amendment and that it will be the second reading for the 60 day moratorium extension because you'll need 30 days there on April 17th. Second reading of the small lot parking text amendment will happen and that will also be the public hearing. And then May 26, the moratorium will expire. So that's what I am proposing to members of Council to give us about 60 more days to have conversation. We will have this in committee, in the luti committee, unfortunately. Councilwoman Sussman and Councilman New will not be available, but I can chair that committee and we will have a longer discussion on small lots. If that is acceptable, please vote in favor of of Council Bill 161. It's been moved in second. Any more comments? Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Clarke I.
Speaker 3: Flynn I. Gilmore I. Cashman I can eat. Lopez I knew with black eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I was wondering as a.
Speaker 3: Result. Nine eyes.
Speaker 0: Nine eyes. Constable 161 has been held in committee till Monday, March 20/20, 2017. Okay, this concludes all the other items that need to be called out and looked down to make sure we got it right. All right, Councilman Clark. Yeah. That's all the items. Okay. All of the bills for introductions are order published. We're now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members, please remember that this is a consent or a block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman. Clerk, will you please put resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a walk for the following items. 147 154 164 165 166 146 157 158 134 and 123.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved in second it matter. Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Black Eye Clerk I Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore I Cashman I can eat.
Speaker 5: Lopez I knew Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting in US results. 99 ays resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no public hearings tonight, I heard somebody say, Hey man, there are no objections from members of council.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots.
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02212017_17-0161
|
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes, Resolution 109 has been adopted as amended. All right, Madam Secretary King, please pull up 161 on small lots. All right. Comes from Sussan. Will you please put council bill 161 on the floor.
Speaker 9: I move that council bill 161 be ordered published.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved. And second, if I move the council bill 161 be held in committee and brought back to the floor council on Monday, February 27th. And I want to give a couple reasons for this and having this conversation with many council members. In talking to Councilman Clark, we're hearing a lot of folks need some time to really review some of these amendments, but more importantly, the public needs some time to review. So here is is my thought in this is that we would postpone this bill for one week. And on Thursday, I would file an extension of the moratorium for 60 days. One of the reasons we wanted to file an extension again is for more public commentary on the amendments that is being put forward by Councilman Clark and Councilman Espinosa. And others have said, you know, there's folks in our district who has not who have not had a chance to really go through this particular proposal and see how it affects them. And so we're going to do that as well during that time. And so we thought this would be appropriate, obviously, just to let the general public know we set this moratorium, I believe was in August for nine months and March 27th, 31st. March 31st is the date that the moratorium will be up. And so we're running against the clock here and folks aren't getting the time that they need to fully understand how the moratorium affects them. And so we thought it important to give a little bit more time and to be very clear that we intend to lift the moratorium and have a conversation going forward on what the proposal will be and vote on council. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I just wanted to thank you, Mr. President, for bringing this word. I think more time will add to the great dialog and debate that we've been having in committee. And I just really appreciate you putting this on the floor.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Similarly, I'd like to express my appreciation and the prudent sort of amount of time. I think that's that that's more than enough to sort of get the adequate input from District one constituents. So I truly appreciate it and thanks, Council. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I will vote to support the one week delay. I guess I had one question. I do not serve on Ludy. I'm doing my best to stay up when I can attend and to read materials. But one item that I did ask for from some of the zoning staff and I see we have a couple of folks, but I'm not quite sure who the staffer is for this.
Speaker 2: Particular proposal that Jeff heard is an audience.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Mr. Hurd, if you could, please, I would love to see an analysis of how many of the parcels are in commercial areas. So much of our debate has focused on residential, but some of these lots are in areas that are either, you know, solely commercial or primarily commercial. And so I just would be very helped if you could share that information prior to, you know, when we're it sounds like with a 60 day delay will will be a ways out from debating it, but that's some information that would be helpful to me.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And Jeff, I think we have a lot of that information in the percentages that my proposal or our proposal would affect some of these lots. And so we'll get that right over to you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Since we're. Making suggestions. I would like to hear from historic Denver, and I'd also like to hear from some affordable housing advocates and how they think this might impact that discussion one way or another.
Speaker 2: Great. And we have two representatives. We had an Annie Levinsky, which was on our stakeholder committee, and also had a affordable housing representative as well. And so we can get both of those folks to testify as well at the hearing so that you can hear their analysis of what they think about this. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. While we're giving out, thanks for the process and I echo what's been said before, I just want to add my thanks to the neighborhood representatives who have really, I think, been the moving force from the beginning about bringing this to council attention and for just pushing for council to do a thorough job on assessing all opportunities to get these lots developed with a minimal as minimal an impact as possible on surrounding neighborhoods. We have some representatives over here and thank you all for coming tonight and for the work you've been doing all along. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman. Councilman Cashman. I'll just make one more comment in in conjunction with Councilwoman Sussman in the next month, we can kind of talk about what needs to have other further conversations in committee, if you'd be open to that simply. Okay. And on next Monday, we'll give you all a full schedule of how we intend to proceed, as well as the moratorium bill. That will be a moratorium extension that will be filed on Thursday, and then we'll be talking about it on Monday. So the folks are clear, you know, when the exact meetings are, when they can come to public hearings and things like that, if there are no other comments. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 5: Clerk Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I question.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 5: Can each. Lopez. I Ortega. I Sussman. I Clark. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please call the voting list, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes Council Bill 161 has been held in committee till Monday, February 27th and come back to the floor. All right. This concludes our items being called out. All other bills for introductions are to publish. We are now ready for the block votes on resolutions and final consideration. Council members, please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call on an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put the resolution on the floor for adoption and the bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President, I move. The resolution has to be adopted, and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. Resolution. So far, all of them of 2017. Resolution 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 102 103 104 105 106 119 120 127 128 118 124 one 3121 126 129 one 3382 All changed over to bills also of 20 1782 one, 11, 79, 80, 81, 83 and that looks like it.
Speaker 2: Good job. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Roll Call Black Eye Clerk by Espinosa. Hi Flynn.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 5: Gilmore I question I can eat I Lopez All right. Ortega, I Susman I Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please cause of very nice results.
Speaker 5: 11 eyes.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots.
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02132017_17-0149
|
Speaker 3: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Communications. Do we have any communications?
Speaker 3: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: We have one proclamation this evening. You might have heard it for the last five, 10 minutes. Councilman Lopez, will you please read Proclamation 149?
Speaker 5: Do we have a proclamation? I think we do have Republican nation, so absolutely. I mean, make sure that the screens are queued. All right. Proclamation 17 149 celebrating the Denver Art Museum and their special exhibit, Star Wars and the Power of Costumes. Nicely done and nicely recognizes the value of inspiring creativity and critical thinking in children and all residents. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Art Museum shares and embodies its value by serving the Denver region year round, but family programing, performance opportunities and school tourism on its collections as well as special exhibitions. And. Whereas, Star Wars and the Power of Costume, an exhibition created by the Smithsonian Institute Traveling Exhibition Mission Service. A new Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in consultation with Lucas films, limited highlights and celebrates the creativity, artistry and craftsmanship that goes into every costume and the creation of every character. And. Whereas, The Denver Art Museum is the sole venue in the Rocky Mountain region for Star Wars and the the power of costume, a unique journey onto the into the Star Wars universe, bringing the iconic characters to life through a dramatic presentation of more than 70 original costumes from the films from Princess Leia, his famous white robe , the queen armor, dollars, elaborately detailed gowns, chewbacca's giant feet to Darth Vader's imposing black armor. It's all fun and games until somebody gets forced choked over there. Whereas the Denver Art Museum has taken this traveling costume exhibition and added additional costumes and more material to create an immersive experience. Exclusive to this Denver showing including Emperor Palpatine's fingernails. Costume sketches and studio spaces to provide more context to the process of creating Star Wars costumes. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Art Museum and its partners, including the Mountain Garrison of the 501st Legion. The Mandalorian Mercs Costume Club and the Rebel Rebel Legion Mountain Base are staying on target to engage the public with costumes and creativity, whereas the possibility of successfully navigating the entire exhibit is approximately 50 to 80 to one. We have a good feeling about this now. Therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one of the Council hereby proclaims February 13th as Star Wars costumes day in the city and county of Denver. Looking at you arriving Section two, the council urges all families to now witness the power of these fully operational, city sponsored cultural institutions by attending this exhibit and participating and participating in festivities which run through April 2nd, 2017. Section three that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver saw test and affects to see seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that copies be transmitted to the Denver Art Museum, the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition and Service. Lucas Museum of Narrative Arts. Lucasfilm Ltd. The Mountain Garrison of the 51st 501st Legion, The Mandalorian Mercs Costume Club and the Rebel Legion Mountain Base. And may the force be with you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 149 series of 2017 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. And second, it comments by members of Council Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I am very proud, actually, in all seriousness, of when we can't be serious about this right there. It seems pretty serious to me. I am very excited about this costumes. This has been going on since November and it's been at the Denver Art Museum and it is one heck of an exhibition. If you get the opportunity to do this from now until April 2nd, go see this exhibition. This is the original Star Wars costumes here in Denver. A lot of them are original sketches. And it is it is a great it's a great show. It's it's awesome that it's here in Denver. And, you know, I had the opportunity of seeing this twice already, and I wouldn't mind a third time. And really, you can spend a whole afternoon, you know, just listening to the different exhibits and just seeing them. And those of us who grew up in the seventies and eighties and I can we can even say up to now, right, with the new movies that have been out, it's a multigenerational experience. You could take the kids, you know, those of us who are big kids can go over there and check it out. But it's I'm very excited. That's here in Denver. And sadly, I got to say this. We we actually were I took my daughter to see it the day that Carrie Fisher had passed away. And it just had it just had what a coincidence that that same day we had tickets for she had passed. And so it was pretty incredible to see, to walk in and actually see her white gown and to see her costumes and to see a little tribute to her after it. But this is definitely quite an experience. I urge my colleagues to go check it out. The folks in the in the room, in the council chambers to go check it out. This is very rare that it's here. And I just wanted to make sure that we are celebrating it, honoring it, welcoming it to Denver so that, you know, in hopes it can come again. So. Mr. President, I. I fully support this proclamation and I hope my council colleagues do, too. You will support this initiative?
Speaker 0: We all do. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just wanted to say that. Yeah, it's an impressive it's an impressive collection of actual costumes and wardrobe. But coupled with there's a lot of information there about the making of the costumes and there's an impressive display of textiles and sort of the the science and engineering and everything, the creativity that goes into the actual making of the costumes. So there is a lot a lot of information there. And I strongly encourage fans and non-fans and whatever degree of interest that you have in the franchise that is Star Wars to go check it out because it is it is quite educational on top of being very familiar. And actually it'll add layers to the to the story making that you probably didn't even you never would have been aware of. But there's a lot of thought that goes into into what's going what's going on, on set and in creating these characters and it comes through in this presentation. So I just really do stress that no matter what your interest is, do check it out because it's quite an impressive curated piece. Thanks. Thank you. Catherine Espinosa and sitting in for Councilwoman can each layer.
Speaker 1: Mr. President. You know, Councilman Lopez, I imagine, has been dreaming about this day, his entire council career, and no one will be surprised that he's a fan. But I might not have been known as a fan. This is not the first time I'm in this way. I could just tell you, but I actually had the pleasure of attending the opening event where Kristoff and many others spoke. And one of the things that I think was really great to learn about is that this is a traveling exhibit in terms of the costumes, but no other museum to date has done the curation of the additional artifacts about the sketches and all of that. And so Denver was unique. And that's that's how this museum has operated with so many of its shows, is it takes art that may be very familiar to you because you learned about it in a class or in this case, you saw it in a movie. But it goes deeper. And and you know what Councilman Espinosa said about going around and into the creative process. And I think that that's really important because one of the things that I think that show does is it shows you the way that art is around you and is every day and hopefully inspires right kids to think about that. Art isn't just a painting or it isn't just a sculpture, but that there are many ways to express yourself and many ways to bring something to fruition from your vision. And that to me is, is where art is bringing the daily into, you know, the lives of the folks seeing the show. So and then, you know, I just want to say, you know, since it is, you know, the year that we lost Carrie Fisher for for an entire generation, I think, of young girls and young women. I think to see an action hero, right. As a as a female. And I think that that's one of the things that that I love and that many of the women of my generation love about that series. And so so for me, that was my chance to give her a little tribute today. So but but I just want to commend the staff and the folks who did the research and putting all of it together because it was very intricate and, you know, may not hit the art world in the same way as, you know, a monet exhibit. But my guess is the technical knowledge and the sorting of those things probably took as much, if not more research and work than our traditional art shows that we think about. So kudos to all your team.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman, can each. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know anybody who is not a Star Wars fan. I also had an opportunity to go to the opening night and have a bunch of pictures on my phone that I was able to take of the exhibit. The economic opportunity that I think it created for our city to encourage not only people who live in Denver, but throughout the metro area to come and see the exhibit and to really feel that close to something that they saw on television for, you know, at least a couple of decades is is pretty exciting. And so I am, first of all, wanting to ask that my name be added to the proclamation. I don't think I had a chance to reply. And I just want to say that a friend of mine that actually went with me to the exhibit, I haven't seen every single one of the series and she's got them all . So we're going to do some binge watching so that I can get caught up to make sure that I am up to speed on all of these. And I just want to say to Darth Vader in the back, may the force be with you as well.
Speaker 0: All right. Councilman earned it.
Speaker 9: Thrilled. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. There. There are few things that last a test of time. And so I was checking the day May 25th, 1977, is when Star Wars debuted. And to think.
Speaker 5: All this ten years later, how it still just.
Speaker 0: Captivated generations for.
Speaker 6: That. And it's just truly a remarkable thing.
Speaker 5: And it would just if we could have had our.
Speaker 6: Students from DFA play some Star.
Speaker 5: Wars music, that just would have been even more.
Speaker 0: Fitting for that. And so I.
Speaker 6: I'm a huge fan and I would.
Speaker 5: Just like to say I'm excited to see this and take my son.
Speaker 0: And this is not the.
Speaker 6: First time we've had a stormtrooper in chambers. I wanted to make sure we all remember that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I I'm so pleased to have such a wonderful art museum in District ten and just a nationally read National Resource. And to have this exhibit, like Robin said, is so unique. This is so unique to Denver in the United States. So I'm so proud that Christoph and his staff are just providing such unique shows. And an educational event for kids is the only issue I had with the exhibit. Everybody had a wonderful time. The only issue is I enjoy the exhibit, but I enjoyed it without my wife, so I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing it again very soon with her. I was told this for sure was going to happen. So anyway, thank you so much for bringing this to Denver and congratulations.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman knew Councilman Lopez back up.
Speaker 5: Yes, I am. And thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to make sure that I gave a big thank you to Christoph and his team, Frederick and Jeremiah. I think it's really, really great work on your behalf. And I think, you know, when we look at the art museum, we go look at a lot of a lot of the. Usually easel art and a lot of different things that are out there, you know, very typically well atypically do we have an exhibit like this? And this brings so many different people to the art museum. And while they're at the art museum, if they come and see this, they're still able to see the other exhibits in the art museum. And that's one of the important things is when you get it, when you come and see this exhibit, you're also able to check out the rest of the floor is the art museum in the Frederick C Hamilton building. All that. It's such an amazing institution. And I also wanted to give a shout out to to Rodolfo and Councilwoman and each his office who probably late at night did this little scroll here unbeknownst to us. And it was quite a surprise and a welcome surprised and and thank you to Darth Vader and the stormtroopers. Right thank you. Thank you for coming out to Denver.
Speaker 0: CC and know.
Speaker 5: Of hope you enjoy some of the finer things.
Speaker 0: See no other comments. Madam Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 3: Lopez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Knew Ortega Susman by Black Eye. Clark I Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Vote I do.
Speaker 6: Flynn I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, I. Herndon High Cashman. Kenny. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please call voting and as a results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Proclamation 149 has passed. Councilman Lopez, if might there be someone you want to bring up to a few people?
Speaker 5: So why don't I at this point invite our director of the art museum, Krista Christoph Hedrick, and then we can have Darth Vader and stormtroopers if you want to come up to the podium as well.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 10: Green Bay, members of the city council. Thank you very much. That's truly a great honor. And I speak for all of us here at the Denver Art Museum who are very honored to be recognized today. We brought some of our friends with us some less some more heavily breathing. And it should be noted that the individuals join us from the Mountain Garrison, from the Rebel Legion and the Mandalorian costuming groups here in our area. So it's talent from the region. I'm getting actually always a little scared if I have these guys next to me because I know that I'm if I'm not in handcuffs, I'm part of the dark side. I think I'm not. I'm a proud director of a wonderful museum. And you already said it all. I feel I don't have anything to add to this, but it was a wonderful journey for us, a wonderful endeavor, really, to dove deep into the treasures of Skywalker Ranch and to find more than 300 additional drawings, maquettes, scribbles, notes to highlight the creative process behind the costumes, but as well, really behind creating characters that still resonate with us in a tremendous way. I want to say at this point as well, a very heartfelt thanks to you, members of the Denver city councils, but as well to the voters of the metro area and worldwide, community leaders support this community. Cultural scene will continue to flourish thanks to the renewal of the Scientific and Cultural Facility District last November, which of course makes all the difference and makes helps us to bring. Nationally and internationally acclaimed programs, world class programs to the community. I'd like to thank Councilman Lopez for his keen interest in Star Wars and the power of costumes at the Denver Art Museum. But as well, many thanks to the other members of the Council for supporting us and come back with your kids, with your grandkids. It is definitely a three, at least if not for generation pleasure. In the meantime, after so many years and with the new film just coming out, our just came out a few weeks ago, I think it really shows how much in the story is and how wonderful this is the purpose of our time. I would like to make a very brief note and thanks to our own District ten Councilman No. For his continuous support of the Golden Triangle cultural community and with this exhibition. Exactly. As Councilwoman Keech said, we are continuing this exploration, this dove deep into human creation, trying to find out and lay out what it is that makes us special and what art is and how many layers, how many costumes, no pun intended, we actually can find for art and what it happens when we look a little deeper and when we look. How do these amazing characters get created? Thank you very much. Thank you for having our team here today, but thank you as well for the great support that we always get from the city and county of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That that one right there is he's a little bit too in character. I mean, he just kept staring at that. We welcome you guys. Everything okay? Okay. I just want to make sure we're good.
Speaker 5: You're lucky to still be alive.
Speaker 0: All right, I did it. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing that forward. And Chris of Denver Art Museum, we're lucky to have this treasured asset in our community resolution. Madame Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating the Denver Art Museum and their special exhibit - Star Wars™ and the Power of Costume.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02132017_16-1276
|
Speaker 4: And when it whenever these on call contracts come up, I get questions from constituents about what's this about? Why don't we get to hear about this? And I don't believe there's anything crooked that goes on with these on call contracts. I understand that they're a part of our city process, but there is some concern about getting regular updates on how the money is spent, etc.. And the second factor on this particular group is that there is a group of folks very concerned about one of our large projects that's going to get underway soon, the plant, the Park Hill Drainage Project. And they wanted to know if this money is some sort of backdoor way, these contracts of spending on that. So I'd like to bring this up and just get the issues out and hear from our folks at Public Works. So I'd like to ask Angelica Sias if she could come up and answer a couple of questions.
Speaker 0: Yeah, and I think we got a team for this because there are many contracts with these on call.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: And then, Councilwoman Ortega, do you want to just wait until they respond and then you have some questions as well? Okay. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Angela. I'd like I'd like to start just by asking you if you would explain what these on call contracts are all about.
Speaker 1: Okay. What I'm going to go ahead and do is I'm going to go ahead and defer to Michael Sheehan and Deb Turner. Deb Turner is actually the person who's overseeing these particular on call contracts. So I'll bring her up and have her explain these.
Speaker 4: In and that they're in line with the general process of on call contracting.
Speaker 1: Yep. And so one correction I do want to make to what you said earlier. This is not $56 million in on coal contracts. These are 4 million up. These are for capacity of up to $4 million each over the next three years.
Speaker 4: Right. But the capacity we'll.
Speaker 1: Be spending $56 million over. Usually we don't go to the maximum amount. This is just so we have some wiggle room and who we can ask to do different projects.
Speaker 4: Thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Could have been council members. And I'm a entering supervisor in public works capital project management, transportation, and these are on calls. We generally use these for contracts under $500,000. To procure engineering services for things like intersection designs. I know. Signal design, small roadway projects that we get throughout the year. General rehab projects like the Bill O'Reilly Rehab. Small roadway. Or an intersection of projects like 56th and Dunkirk. We do median design, small bridge designs, even structural rehab of drainage and bridge facilities with these. We also open this up to other people and public works. And I think the Parks Department, Arts and venues, a lot of people use these contracts. But anything over $100,000, we generally mini bid. So we have a minimum of three bids on those, usually, sometimes more. Most of our contracts are, I think, under $100,000. So this is how we generally use these. Do you have any questions on that?
Speaker 4: And when will council find out how these monies are spent?
Speaker 1: I know you want to. So so we have a long awaited report coming to you. And I know that we've we've done some vetting and we've vetted it through the mayor's office and through our department. And so you should be seeing a regular report starting the by the end of this week. And what we're going to do is we're going to send that report around, as is to all the on call contracts that we have currently, their capacity, how much has been used. And what we'd like to do is offer one on one briefings to the council members to explain the on call contracting process and how that all works and how you can read this report so you understand how what we're actually reporting on.
Speaker 4: So do I understand then that we will hear about on a regular basis every dollar that you spend on these on call contracts. Correct. Thank you, Michael. I think you're the one that will answer this. So as far as the whether or not these contracts are associated with with the plot to Park Hill project, can can you explain.
Speaker 6: The plat to Park Hills being publicly procured separately from these on calls that are too big for the on calls because they go well over the limits of the on calls. So for example, City Park Golf Course is an active design for build procurement at this time and we anticipate that will come through City Council in Q3 , 39th AV Greenway and Park Hill, that's also in an active design build procurement, which will come through City Council for approval in Q4 of this year. And then thirdly, we also have a program management selection to supplement our staff with resources required to implement those large projects that will come through City Council for review and approval in Q3.
Speaker 4: So if somewhere along the line you decide you need on call assistance with that, would that be new money or is is that.
Speaker 6: Now it's all part of the existing plan at the Park Hill budget. All these projects that come through the on calls are either a come through the budget book or they come through our various customers. As Angela referenced in Arts and Venues, Parks and Rec Art Museum, we do projects for we're doing projects for National Western Center and we work with our our team of city attorney's office and contracts folks to evaluate what can fit within the on call versus what needs to be publicly procured.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Yep, no problem. Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 10: You just used the question. So all the on call money that we're seeing here now is budgeted in the 2017 budget. Right. Or or will be in the subsequent budgets for three years.
Speaker 6: Keep in mind that 56 million in capacity will we'd have to really be pushed over utilize out of all the existing nine that expire this fall, only one is close on capacity. The remaining eight have significant capacity remaining.
Speaker 10: So it was all part of the budget discussion that we had for this year. Yes. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great County Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. No.
Speaker 1: Now is it?
Speaker 0: No, it's okay.
Speaker 1: I think part of the you know, we did get some requests about on calls. It was a confusion between NG calls and the project itself. And I think we had some questions about how the citizen might be able to find a description of the project on which an on call might be used. Because I know on call work is work you need at the time you need it, but it is about a project. And I know when in an RFP we will put a description of the project. And how does a how does an average citizen find out a description of the larger project for which an on call might be used? Hi, Angela can see us again. So we do have a website which lists all of the all of the projects that are in progress on dimmer. Gov. So if you go to Denver gov dot org forward slash DPW and there is a box that says I believe it's like construction, planning and construction if you go there that lists all of the projects that are in process now. So this isn't specific to on call projects, but it is all of the construction projects that are happening in this fiscal year. I think that's really important because I think I heard on those emails that that was what people wanted to know was what, what construction , what, where can I read about these construction projects? And I, I knew that they were on the website. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, Councilman Espinosa. And I apologize. I was writing my questions as one of the answers was, you've already said this. I'm going to ask to repeat it. So how is overlap handled with the PDP? I mean, Platte, Park Hill contractors, are they preferred because of their familiarity should result in savings or is there no overlap?
Speaker 6: Actually, the answer to that question is they're typically precluded because they can't sit on both sides. In other words, they can't represent us, the owner, and then pursue the project. So we review them on a case by case basis. But generally, most of the folks who have supported the preliminary engineering for the plant, the particular precluded from pursuing the project, said are out advertising right now.
Speaker 0: Okay. You know, are there bright lines preventing work within the boundaries of the plants of Park Hill scope and area and the National Western Center? So that that money doesn't come in, that that money for those projects comes out of stormwater or they're dedicated revenue and not out of public works funds.
Speaker 6: I can tell you it's been vetted very closely as National Western defines their program and how they're going to move forward with it. That's we're waiting on that information, but others are looking at that very closely to make sure there's no conflict there. And we anticipate watching it very closely.
Speaker 0: I would just to maybe make our job a little bit easier when reviewing these sort of subsequent updates is identify those that are sort of within those boundaries so that we're not trying to, you know, identify intersections and things like that or roadways and trying to make that delineation ourselves. If there's something that is in that sort of work perimeter where the PDP, you know, plant to Park Hill or some of these other larger funded projects or so we can make that so we can if we have versions about that overlap.
Speaker 6: Understood in our program resource office where we track all these projects we're actually working right now, they'll be able to load them all into gear so we can identify the location of each project with the reports.
Speaker 0: Yeah, and I think you're getting you can get where my concern is is we've already dedicated a healthy amount of our budgets and fees to those projects. And if and we want our public works money sort of going elsewhere. Interested. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinoza. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, I routinely call out the call contracts because I don't think we get enough detailed information upfront. And I do appreciate the fact that Angela came over and met with me and provided some information in writing based on some questions that I submitted. But I think we need to make sure that we're getting more information so that when either we get them on a consent calendar or they come to committee, we know upfront and don't have to have you all come out in and be expected to answer the questions here. It should be part of that contract request form that gets filed with City Council on the front end. And Councilman Flynn and I have had some conversations about this to ensure that not just with on call contracts but with other bills that get filed, we're getting more information so that we're not scrambling, trying to get the information on on a monday when in some cases the bills only have the details that are attached on Thursday afternoon. So it doesn't give us a lot of time when the agencies have been working on some of these contracts or ordinances for months and months. And then we're expected to scramble. And, you know, I just have to say that I'm I'm not happy that we changed our process, taking away one week from our review of what used to be two reading ordinances, and now it's a one reading proclamation. And that was a resolution that was done to expedite the contracting process. But, you know, in. In that procedure, we get shortchanged. And I think we need to make sure we're getting a lot more information. One of the questions I have for you, Michael, if you wouldn't mind coming to the podium. Is where would something like the Washington Street design fall? Would that be a separate project? Would that be something that would fall within this for the design work? This is the widening of Washington Street in the Globeville neighborhood. And for those of you who are not aware, we've got Xcel Energy that's going to be doing a pipeline, a gas pipeline down through the Globeville neighborhood. We. Councilman Brooks and I've been encouraging that this happen on Washington Street and not through the residential neighborhood. But, you know, having having that design work would be really important. And I don't know where something like that would fall, whether it's a non-call or whether it's going to be a separate bid project because of the cost.
Speaker 0: This is I may be able to take this because there's another one in my district just like it and it's bright and boulevard. And I believe it's a separate project, just like what we doing at Park Platte to Park Hill in City Park, because it's so large, it's a 60, $60 million project, correct?
Speaker 1: If it's an over $500,000, well, generally same as a heartbeat or an RFP out so that the general engineering community can bid on it. So yeah, that one is definitely large enough. It's its own separate project.
Speaker 8: Okay. I have no further questions or comments.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Uh, Councilman Flynn? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 6: I just make sure that I'm clear on. Since Councilwoman Ortega brought up Angela, maybe you could address this. The administration under the charter, the way it is now, the list that you sent us this afternoon, nearly every one of these projects you could put out individually in a separate contract, because they're all well below the half million dollar threshold in the charter that has to come to us. Now, you did say I believe that or Michael, maybe you said it, that if a task order is more than $100,000, you'll seek many bids among the among the folks who are all who already have the on call. What do you do when the estimate is over half a million dollars.
Speaker 1: That would go out for a hard bid?
Speaker 6: That would go out for Harbert. But would it come back to us then? Yes, that's what I thought. Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flint. Councilman Espinosa, you back up? Yeah. One more sort of question related to the the the way council in Cashman sort of observed that this might. This seems like a $56 million request when the request for services went out, the RFP, RFQ, I don't know what it is. When that went out, was it done as 14 separate RFP or was there one call?
Speaker 1: There was one.
Speaker 0: So I think that's sort of important to sort of state. We knew we had $56 million worth of total capacity that we're going to allocate, mean that we're going to approve or disapprove tonight. Doesn't mean you're going to spend it. But we did treat it when we went out and asked for people to send their their qualifications in once. And under that big umbrella. And now we're talking about 14 different contracts. But it is one big ask.
Speaker 1: So when we do these on call contracts, this doing it this way saves us public works from anywhere from 60 to 120 days in actually getting the work done and out on the street. So this is this is an efficiency for us.
Speaker 0: And I agree. And I think that's important that we do that as a city to sort of, you know, recognize efficiencies when we can. But I do want to sort of when we go back and we're looking at and we're approving 14 bills that are all essentially the same language with different names, it still looks like $56 million.
Speaker 1: So that's again, we we rarely go up to that 56 million. And in the time that those contracts are open, it just allows for flexibility as the contractors are bidding for getting work.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. So no one, this isn't you're not putting this on the floor, Councilman Cashman?
Speaker 4: Yes, I do want to put it on the.
Speaker 0: Floor for a vote. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, would you please move the resolution, resolutions 1276 through 1289 on the floor for adoption? You're not going to let me do a range. So are there. I move that resolutions 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 12, 80, 12, 81, 12, 82, 12, 83, 12, 84, 12, 85, 12, 86, 12, 87, 1288 and 1289 be adopted in a block. All right. It has been moved in second it any comments? Any more comments? Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to say, I do not believe there is any monkey business or malfeasance going on with these contracts. However, I'm going to take the opportunity to vote no tonight to encourage the follow through on the reporting and detail that I hope will be coming across. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I just want to add that I appreciate the fact that we are going to be getting a report, but that's different from getting detailed information with each bill that gets filed up front. So, you know, it'll be great that we look at things in the RIRs, but I'd like to see it up front before voting. So I know exactly what those details entail. So for that reason, I'm going to be voting down to nine as well.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, I just want to sort of preface my comment. I will be voting in in favor of the contracts tonight, but I just wanted my colleagues to know that I've already going to formulate a request for sort of more granularity of prior years on how this money was used, sort of to paint a picture and then appreciate the sort of efforts to sort of track this going forward as well. So thank you. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Raquel Cashman.
Speaker 3: Can each Lopez. New Ortega?
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 3: Sussman.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 3: Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I heard in.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Politicals voting announce results.
Speaker 3: Sorry. I'm just looking to make sure everyone feels like a council member with. Tennis, tennis.
Speaker 0: Tennis Tuesdays Resolutions 1276 through 1289 have been adopted in a block. We've taken off Council Bill 49. This includes all the items that are called out. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. We're now ready for the block votes on resolutions on final consideration, except for council bills 56 and 58. The two are companion bills and bills to be scheduled for a required public hearing later this evening. Council. Council will vote to pass companion Bill 56 after the conclusion of the public hearing on Council Bill 55 approving the amendment to the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloan Sloan's BLOCK three project to authorize the creation of two sales tax increment areas. And Council will vote to pass the companion bill 58 after the conclusion of the public hearing on Council Bill 57 approving an amendment to the St Anthony's Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloan's BLOCK nine project to authorize the use of property tax increment financing. Councilmembers. Please 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 on the floor for final passage? Thank you, 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. 17 007400750034003500850108 12 0500 70 700 70 800 49 and zero zero 51. All series 70. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 3: Black Eye Clark by Espinosa, i Flynn I Gilmore, i Herndon I Cashman can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega i Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Resolutions have been adopted. The bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 55, which approves the amendment to the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloan's Lake BLOCK three project to authorize the creation of two sales tax increment areas and a require
|
Resolution
|
A resolution for approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and David Evans and Associates, Inc. for on-call professional engineering services.
Approves an on-call contract with David Evans and Associates, Inc. for $4 million for three years to provide comprehensive engineering services to support various Public Works capital projects, and general engineering services in connection with the planning, design, and construction of various projects citywide (201631684). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-6-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 12-13-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02132017_17-0055
|
Speaker 0: Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which would result in a total of 6 minutes. 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 director comments to council members please refrain from profane and obscene speech . Direct your comments to council as a whole and and refrain from individual or personal attacks. We really don't like those. Okay, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 55 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 55 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and it the public hearing for counsel, bill 55 is open. May we have the staff report? Tracy Huggins, it's good to see you.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins. I am the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority here this evening to request of City Council your consideration of an amendment to the St Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the Sloan's BLOCK three project and to create the Sloan's BLOCK three sales tax increment areas. The scene at the Urban Redevelopment Area was established following City Council approval in July of 2013 and is comprised of approximately 32 acres generally bounded by Stewart Street on the west west Colfax Avenue on the South Perry Street on the East and West 17th Avenue on the North. The majority of the urban redevelopment area was occupied by the Saint Anthony Central Hospital campus prior to its closure. The redevelopment of the former hospital campus is primarily supported by two metropolitan districts, which use additional property taxes levied on the property to finance a variety of infrastructure improvements. Even with the use of metropolitan district financing, there was concern that the key objectives of the redevelopment plans could go unrealized without potential gap financing to support catalytic projects along West 17th Avenue and along West Colfax Avenue. In particular, the Colfax Parcel or BLOCK seven was challenged by difficulty in attracting new neighborhoods, serving retail to a largely blighted stretch of West Colfax and the anticipated extraordinary cost to support structured parking to meet the urban design objectives of Main Street zoning. The potential gap financing for the common parcel or BLOCK three was driven by a desire to preserve a 1939 structure that requires extraordinary abatement and renovation, including a complete replacement and mechanical systems historically served by the main hospital. Central Plan. With those concerns in mind. City Council approved the Urban Redevelopment Plan, which encompasses the nine blocks noted in this diagram. Council also approved the creation of a property tax increment area that is coterminous with the metropolitan district boundaries. Any property tax increment generated within the property tax increment area can only be utilized on approved projects. To date, council has approved two projects within the urban redevelopment area. Thus the BLOCK seven West Project, which will be the future home of the Alamo Drafthouse Theater.
Speaker 0: Miss Hawkins? Yes. Our, uh, you know, illumination has gone there, so if you could tell us the pages that you're on, that'd be helpful.
Speaker 7: Do you? The pages of.
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 7: Mr. President, of this. So do you see this on your. On your screen?
Speaker 0: Some of us do. Does everybody have one? This one's on.
Speaker 8: The back.
Speaker 7: One. I will not be offended at all if you choose to turn around and look at your monitors instead of facing me.
Speaker 0: Okay. I think. I think some of us have enough.
Speaker 1: Yeah. They're not on there.
Speaker 0: Yeah, we have.
Speaker 7: Just like you have the slide slides. So I actually. Maybe I can do this. I believe I am on slide four.
Speaker 0: Okay, great.
Speaker 7: Do you want to give me a head? Not if you're. If you're with me on slide four, make sure we're synched up.
Speaker 0: Is that three or four on an hour's, guys? Four. Okay.
Speaker 7: So far, so good on slide four. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: All right. All right.
Speaker 7: So, to date, council has approved two projects within the urban redevelopment area, the Sloan's BLOCK Seven West Project, which will be the future home of the Alamo Drafthouse Theater and the BLOCK seven East Project, which includes the redevelopment of the existing Raleigh Office Building and the construction of new retail along Colfax. Those projects were approved by City Council in January of 2015. The project, being considered this evening through an amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan, is the redevelopment of BLOCK three, which is generally bordered by West 17th Avenue, Perry Street, West 16th Avenue and Quitman Street. This launch block three project site covers an entire block within the urban redevelopment area and includes the existing vacant former nurse's dormitory, the Coleman Building and auditorium building. So I'm now on Slide six. So still with me?
Speaker 0: Yup.
Speaker 7: All right. So the BLOCK three project would include the following components. Rehabilitation of the 44,000 square foot historic Coleman building, a former nurse's dormitory into multifamily, affordable housing rehabilitation of the auditorium attached to the Coleman building into a 5000 square foot retail and or restaurant space. Construction of a new 2200 square foot single storey retail building. Construction of approximately 25 new market rate townhomes. Construction of a 4300 square foot public plaza, as well as the installation of streets, utilities and public space within the site, as well as storm drainage facilities for block three and adjacent blocks. So I'll touch on each of those components briefly. As far as the affordable housing, as part of the implementation of the previously negotiated affordable housing plan for the Saint Anthony site, the six story Coleman building will be redeveloped to include 49 affordable units. The building amenities will include an onsite leasing office community room with an entertainment area and kitchenette, as well as a fitness center. The building will have 30 reserved surface parking spaces and an additional 15 reserve parking spaces in the existing parking garage that is located on BLOCK five. This slide and I'm now on slide number eight provides a breakdown of the unit mix in the Coleman building. As you can see, of the 49 total units, three will be studios. 37 will be one bedroom, and the remaining nine units will be two bedroom. This slide also provides the expected expected rents for the various types of units, as well as the current income guidelines for persons at 60% of area median income. Or am I? I will note that this project did receive 4% low income housing tax credits through their application to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. So the income will be limited to 60% of AM I. On Slide nine, we show the retail, restaurant and Public Plaza components of the project. As I noted previously, it will include new retail, restaurant and public spaces. The renovated Coleman Auditorium building will include 5000 square feet of retail and or restaurant space. There will also be new construction at the corner of West 17th Avenue and Perry Street to provide an additional 2200 square feet of retail and restaurant space, along with a new 4300 square foot public plaza. These uses will be supported by approximately 32 parking spaces on block three. This project will also include for sale housing by virtue of the sale of approximately 25 for sale market rate townhomes. These townhomes will be three and four stories and will will face West 17th Avenue, Quitman Street and West 16th Avenue. Each townhome will have either one or two garage parking for their homeowners. The Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizes Jerry to finance projects within the urban redevelopment area by use of tax increment financing. The plan amendment will authorize the use of property tax increment financing as well as to add the loans. BLOCK three sales tax increment areas. Doris Gaff has done a thorough underwriting of the project and has reviewed the redevelopment budget and performance submitted by the developer and believes there is a financial gap in the project of approximately $6.5 million. This amount is subject to change based on the final pricing of those 4% low income housing tax credits. This financing gap will be addressed by reimbursing eligible costs through sales and property tax increment generated by the redevelopment of the property that is block three as well as amounts from the broader property tax increment area. Following redevelopment, the site is anticipated to generate approximately $120,000 per year in net property tax increment and approximately $95,000 per year in net sales tax increment. This amount of increment being generated from block three alone would not be sufficient to repay the entire $6.5 million financing gap in the project. Therefore, the incremental tax revenues from block three will be supplemented by taking an amount from the property tax that is generated through the development of blocks one, two and four of about $850,000 per year. And those amounts, again in combination will be used to reimburse the developer for those eligible expenses over a period not to exceed 25 years. In approving the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan, City Council found the Urban Redevelopment Plan to be in conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 and its applicable supplements. Accordingly, any amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan must be in conformance with the Urban Redevelopment Plan objectives in order to maintain the continuing conformance with comp plan 2000. The general objectives of the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions and to stimulate the continued growth and development of the urban redevelopment area. The proposed project meets the following objectives of the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to eliminate the present and growing factors which contribute to blight in the urban redevelopment area . To renew and improve the character and environment of the area and its surroundings by preventing or ameliorating economic, physical and environmental deterioration. To encourage residential retail and commercial development and redevelopment that is socially and economically inclusive and from which the urban redevelopment area and its environs can draw economic strength to encourage and protect existing development within and immediately adjoining the area by creating conditions from which these areas can draw new economic strength to more effectively use under to more effectively use underdeveloped land within the area to encourage land use patterns within the area where pedestrians are safe and welcome to promote a diverse mix of dense housing options to encourage re-use of existing buildings where appropriate, including adaptive reuse. To promote a diverse, sustainable near neighborhood economy, including mixed use and commercial development opportunities within the urban redevelopment area, and to improve access to healthy transportation options and existing parks. In approving the proposed amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan. There are a number of legislative findings that city council must make. Those include the finding that the Sloan's BLOCK three project is located within the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Area and will promote the objectives set forth in the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan. Also, finding that a feasible method exists for relocation of displaced individuals and families and business concerns. The project area contains no residences, therefore no individuals or families will be displaced. Additionally, due to the vacancy of the site, no business concerns will be displaced as a result of the project. Asking council to find that written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the resolution setting this public hearing. City Council requested 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 Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment area. That mailing was undertaken on January 13, 2017, which is at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. Council must find that no more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on this plan amendment. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on this plan amendment. The statute also requires that two years must elapse before council consider an urban redevelopment plan amendment if they previously failed to approve an Urban Redevelopment Plan amendment for this project. This is the first consideration by City Council of this planned amendment for this project. Also, the plan amendment contains no property that was included in a previously submitted plan amendment that was not approved by City Council. As such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months since any prior public hearing is inapplicable. Must find that the plan amendment is in conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. To that end, on January 18th, 2017, the Denver Planning Board, unanimously, with one abstention, found that the proposed amendment to the St Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to the Denver Comprehensive Plan and applicable supplements. And a letter to the. To this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing and is requesting that city council concur with the planning boards finding. The St Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan is 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 area by private enterprise. The development team of Trail Brake Partners and Copland Company are the developers and private development entities who intend to undertake the redevelopment project. Council must find that the city and county of Denver can adequately, 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 Sloan's BLOCK three project area for the period during which the incremental sales taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address additional infrastructure requirements and city services should they arise. The Urban Renewal Authority has notified Council must find that 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 that an agreement has been negotiated governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue. This amendment to the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan invoke certain new statutory requirements. Recall that the original plan was approved in 2013, and now that we are coming forward in 2017, there are provisions of House Bill 15 1348 governing urban renewal activities that now require that City Council before City Council can approve a new urban renewal plan , or in this case, an amendment to an existing plan. You must find that an agreement has been entered into between Doura and the affected taxing districts in regard to the allocation of property tax increment to the project. There are three other property taxing districts. Those being Denver Public Schools. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. And the South Sloan's metropolitan districts that I mentioned at the beginning of this presentation. To satisfy these new statutory requirements. Dura has negotiated agreements with these three taxing entities. First, I'll speak to the school funding agreements between Durham and DPS in recognition of the proposed number of residential units expected to be delivered across the entire Saint Anthony Urban redevelopment area, including those blocks which do not have any direct involvement. During negotiating an agreement with Denver Public Schools, which provides that $2.5 million will be paid to DPS over a ten year period to address the impact the Saint Anthony redevelopment will likely have on their ability to provide services to the children in the area. The payment to DPS will be made from incremental property taxes generated from blocks one, two and four and will be paid first before any reimbursement to the BLOCK three project. As the BLOCK three project was part of the original evaluation that DPS made. In looking at the redevelopment of the entire area, they are finding, they being DPS, that there is no additional impact as a result of us bringing forward the BLOCK three project and they have acknowledged the same in an agreement with the Urban Renewal Authority. With urban drainage and flood control. They also were notified of the proposed amendment to the redevelopment plan to add the BLOCK three project. Following that notification, urban drainage evaluated the impact the project would have on their services and determined that the BLOCK three project would have minimal service impacts and have agreed to allow the full available amount of property tax increment generated by their mill levy to be allocated to the project. This again was memorialized in a letter agreement between urban drainage flood control and the Urban Renewal Authority and finally with the loans metropolitan district. At the time, the St Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan was approved, including the creation of the seven block property tax increment area. Dura and the South Sloan's Lake Metropolitan Districts entered into a cooperation agreement under which Defra agreed to pay over to the Metropolitan District any amount of property tax increment generated by their mill levy. So in closing, Dora is very pleased to be working with the city and the developer to bring forward this project. The redevelopment of this site, the adaptive reuse of an existing historic building, the addition of addition of new retail offerings and a mix of housing options will create a truly mixed use. Mixed income development on this block. This loans block three project advances many of the urban redevelopment plan objectives. And we are asking for your favorable consideration of this amendment and will be I will be happy to answer any questions you may have at the appropriate time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Huggins. We have two speakers this evening. When I call you names, if you would please come to the front. Cameron. Cameron. Bertrand and Doug. Elements. Cameron. You'll be first, Mr. Burch, on the 3 minutes. Thank you very much. Hi. I am Cameron Bertrand and I live at 1145 Gaylord Street in Denver. I also work for TFG, South Sloan's Lake One LLC, which is the current property owner of the site. So I just wanted to come up and add my support to the passage of adding this project to the urban renewal area, but also as the developer of the St Anthony's site. Just take a moment to say that in some ways this is the culmination of a story that started back in 2013 when the council created the urban renewal area. And I think this is just the kind of project that we hoped would come forward. Historic preservation, environmental remediation, affordable housing, open space. It's a great outcome if you haven't been out to the site in a while. It's changed a lot. There are people living there and people shopping there and people eating there. And I think the variety of housing and neighborhood services that we wanted to see come about through the redevelopment of St Anthony's is really happening. And so in closing, I guess I would just thank everybody on City Council, your staff and in particularly the city and county of Denver staff, especially the public works and in this case also community planning and development. A project like this doesn't often go off this well this fast. And really three and a half short years, the place has really transformed. And I credit that to the partnership with the city. Finally, I would just like to say thanks to Trail, Brake and Coble, it's always great to work on Denver projects with Denver developers and the Denver Urban Renewal Authority for all their work not only on this project but throughout the city. Anthony site. Thanks. Thanks so much. Available for questions if needed. Thank you, Mr. Bertram. Doug Alliance.
Speaker 6: Hi. Good evening. My name is Douglas Honowitz and I live at 99, 63 East 29th Avenue in Denver. And I'm here on behalf of Trailer Park Partners and Cable Joint Venture Partnership, known as Sloan's BLOCK three LLC. Catchy name that is the applicant and redevelop her for the purposes of the discussion here this evening in Sloan's BLOCK three project. I echo what what Cameron was saying there this is tonight is really a culmination of years of work from a lot of people, both in the public and in the private sector, really trying to bring forward a terrific vision. And I appreciate council's consideration of the matter. The project that has been designed and that's being presented tonight is, is is really thoughtfully put together to try to realize some of the items that were contained in the general development plan for the St Anthony's area, in total from the urban redevelopment plan that was put in place back in 2013. And from our understanding of conversations over the years with the community members that were there historically and that have subsequently moved into the area, the vision really is to deliver upon a mixed use, mixed income project that serves the housing needs and the the services for this neighborhood in total from the work of the Borough Community Groups, City Council and OED Jafa, who has been actively involved in it and others tonight we can realize that vision. Restoring an old building and putting it back into use. That's a connection to the past and very important past of St Anthony's here. This is one of those key pieces of the project, the hospital in total that's being saved and reused to continue to serve the community of Denver to mixed housing options for sale for and for rent and restaurant and other other services to the area. We just really think it's going to be a catalytic project that is respectful to the neighborhood boundaries, strengthens the relationship with the park. And we just we're excited to be bringing it forward and very much appreciate your consideration of it tonight and look forward to your support of this measure. Thank you very much. And likewise, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Leno. It's all right. This concludes our speakers. Now, are there questions for members of council? All right. Public hearing from counsel Bill 55 is now closed. Comments from his counsel, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just I'm glad that Cameron is here. Doug here with Tracy. I want to thank you, Cameron. I know early in my time in office, we had talks about the balance of this property and what it would be. And there was a question about the life of the Coleman building and what was going to be viable there. And we knew that we needed partnerships. And you established how that could be, but we still needed to find a developer willing to follow through. And when I met Doug and he came forward with this concept for affordable housing, it sort of filled a big it was it was filled a big void that was very much in need. And so I really I want to thank you for for bringing this forward being and everybody, Doug in our dialog and Tracy for helping see this through because we had good public meetings, we got good output and I mean good input and we're at a place on this development which is which is well, I'm heartened by this phase three. I'm not going to lie. I wish I wish it wasn't going to beat out the, you know, two blocks that are still sitting there vacant. And I wish we could have sort of built that sort of collaboration and seen those things through, particularly in BLOCK Two, because I thought we we had a good dialog leading up to that. But anyway, I do I probably shouldn't have mentioned that, but I do I do think that there is a nexus for the future and the vision you guys had put forward. And it is missing those two pieces. And I look forward to someday moving forward on that. But in the meantime, I think this is a great proposal and I think the city and the team for persevering and making it happen. So to Doug, Tracy and Cameron, thank you very much. Looking forward to supporting this. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to go back to when these two gentlemen started this project with a lot of community meetings with the Sloan's Lake neighborhood. I attended a number of those at the old St Anthony's Hospital when the building was still there. And to see the progress that's been made in this short time frame and the fact that you're here tonight and there aren't any residents from the community, you know, testifying, says a lot about the important work that you have done with the Sloan's Lake neighborhood over these years. So first, I want to say congratulations and I'm happy to support these bills tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing. Thank you for what you're doing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Castro and Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I also wanted to extend my support for these for this bill. You know, it's been a long time coming. And, you know, I grew up just south of the hospital. My sister was born at the hospital. Broken nose at the hospital, not at the hospital, but, you know, ended up there. They didn't do a good job, obviously. But I'm pleased to see it develop. I, you know, had a meeting, a good meeting with Dora and Rose Cameron with the development side to really talk about the affordable housing and, you know, the effort that was made there. But the need in the future to really think about when we look at affordable housing and look at units that they are not just one bedrooms, that they are two, two and three bedrooms, because that's when we talk about families. Right. We can call one bedrooms, affordable housing anywhere in the city. But when you really look at the need that's out, there's two bedrooms. So when we look at developments, we look at it from look at it with opportunity to create those two bedrooms. So here's the here's the deal on West Colfax. We've seen such a lack of of development and such. And it's been really hard and a lot of hard work with the West. Colfax did kind of pushing that forward. And I think it's about time. It just saddens me that we can't do more. The retail side of this site to really bring that out. You know, I think Councilman Herndon, this is something that you and I have both talked about in the past. But when we look at the edges of this city, we have we are competing with our regional neighbors. They're building Belmar. We're building residential. So it's a it's important for us to be able to keep those Denver dollars and the Denver tax base in Denver and to really support those projects that do that and add a good quality of residential to the neighborhood. So here's to it moving forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, it has been moves in Sacramento. Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I. Herndon.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman Black. All right. Clark. All right, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I police close voting announce the results. 3939 Council Bill 55 has passed. Congratulations. All right, but we are not done. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 57 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that. Oh, God, I got it.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing and approving an amendment to the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the Sloans Block 3 Project and to Create the Sloans Block 3 Sales Tax Increment Areas.
Approves an amendment to the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloans Block 3 Project to authorize the creation of two Sales Tax Increment Areas to provide funding for the preservation and redevelopment of the historic Kuhlman building and auditorium into new affordable housing, retail and restaurant space and townhomes in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-24-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02132017_17-0056
|
Speaker 0: That's my bet. Six 5656 And I move that council bills 56 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has. Now. There we go. It's been moved in. Second it. The public hearing for council bill 56 is now open. Has a staff report.
Speaker 6: 57.
Speaker 0: Oh, I see, I see. Okay, so this is I'm sorry, four, four members of council. We're going to vote on 56 as part of this companion bill, and then we're going to go to the public hearing for 57. So we're going to this is the part of the companion bill has been moved and second it. We don't have any comments by members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Espinosa, i Flynn I Gilmore, i. Herndon. High Fashion. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman Black Eye. Clark. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting, announce results.
Speaker 3: See Councilman Herndon's.
Speaker 0: 13 Ice 13 Ice Council 56 has now been approved. All right, Madam Secretary, we've got onto Council 1257.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Cooperation Agreement for Sloans Block 3 Sales Tax Increment Areas in the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Area between the City and County of Denver and Denver Urban Renewal Authority.
Approves a Cooperation Agreement with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) for the Sloans Block 3 Sales Tax Increment Areas within the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Area in Council District 1. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-27-17. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-24-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02132017_17-0057
|
Speaker 0: 13 Ice 13 Ice Council 56 has now been approved. All right, Madam Secretary, we've got onto Council 1257.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Councilor 57 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 57 be placed upon final consideration and do passed. It has been moved in second. It published here for council 57 is open. May we have the staff report? The circuits.
Speaker 7: You made. Hello again. Tracy Huggins, the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. And Mr. President and members of council, this is a new and separate public hearing on another project, but it is all related to the same urban redevelopment area that I just described, complete with its history. So with your permission, may I go past those slides as opposed to having to repeat them again?
Speaker 0: You have all of my permission.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 7: So with your permission, let's.
Speaker 1: Fast forward to.
Speaker 7: Slide.
Speaker 1: Four.
Speaker 7: And again, I'm now going to ask that you you don't you don't have the same this presentation. It's a continuation of the one that you had previously.
Speaker 0: So we'll work as long as you put it up on the screen.
Speaker 7: The and forgive me for being presumptuous because I have now added to the list of previously approved projects. BLOCK three. Mm hmm. And now the project that we are bringing forward, is that on block nine?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 7: With again, within the same urban redevelopment area. And this project area is the the portion of block nine. Again, BLOCK three was the entire block. This is just a portion of block nine, generally fronting West Colfax Avenue between Quitman and Perry streets. This Sloan's BLOCK nine project site has had several previous uses, including a used car lot, a cell phone store in the Yeshivah School dormitory. This is a picture of the former used car lot, the cell phone store and the dormitory. I do, just as I said in council committee, want to be fair to the owners of those properties. They did not look just like that before they were closed and and boarded up. But you can see just how quickly properties, once those uses have been taken away, can begin to change on the site. And this is all. And those those private previous uses have since been demolished to allow for the development of the BLOCK nine project. And the BLOCK nine project is also known as Vida at Sloan's Lake, and it will include a new 217,000 square foot building consisting of a seven story tower with 112 units of senior rental housing at 60%, ami a five story tower with 64 units of senior rental housing with affordability at the 30, 40, 50 and 60% AMI levels. A 20,000 square foot community health clinic on the main level and a senior activity center and rooftop community amenity space. There will be 125 parking spaces. 109 of those will be below grade with 16 spaces above grade and on the surface. This is a very busy slide and but it is intended to show the unit count the levels of affordability. If you can see this slide, you'll see on there that there is a section that says V to 9%. A section that says V to 4%. And then the total. The reason for that is this project was successful in applying both for 4% and 9% credits from again, from the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. Lot of information on here. And there are representatives from D who are here who will be able to speak to this. But the long and the short of it is that there are 175 tenant units. All of these are one bedroom units. There is one unit that is a two bedroom, and that will be for the the project or the site manager. And again, you can see that the rents here are for those persons at between 30 and 60%. Am I included in here is a footnote that says although the AMI thresholds show a mix of up to 60% AMI, in reality the household served by senior and disabled subsidy are at or below 30% AMI. So this is intended to be a project that is a very deep level of affordability. As I mentioned previously, this project was successful in procuring low income housing tax credits from from Chiapas. They are also bringing other forms of assistance to this. Even with that, they still have been able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Urban Redevelopment Authority or the Urban Renewal Authority that there is a $5.5 million financing gap that is expected to be addressed through property tax increment generated by that broader seven block property tax increment area as the project is to be undertaken, owned and operated by the Denver Housing Authority. The property will be largely tax exempt. Therefore, we are not requesting council to approve a property tax increment area for this project. Instead, the property tax increment generated by the redevelopment of blocks one, two and four a gain of approximately $850,000 per year will be used to reimburse VHA for eligible expenses over a period not to exceed 25 years. Again as council found the urban redevelopment plan to be in conformance with comp plan and its applicable supplements. We are also needing to make sure that any project continues to meet those objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan. Again. I would prefer not to have to walk through all of those components which this project is in clear conformance with the Urban Redevelopment Plan objectives. So instead of going through each of those, what I would call out is that there is a different finding here as opposed to the project, the BLOCK three project, which is the encouraging of high and moderate density development where appropriate, including structured parking. As you can see, this is a fairly dense development on this site. I will, however, go through each of these legislative findings because I do think that is a key component in making sure that we have met the requirements under state statute. So we are asking that council find that the Black Nine Project is located within the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment area and that it will promote the objectives set forth in the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan. Again, need to find that a feasible method exists for relocation of displaced individuals and families and business concerns. At this point, there are no residences or businesses on the site. Therefore, there are no requirements for and for us to undertake relocation. Written notice of this public hearing was made to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the entire Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Area on January 13th of 2017, which again is at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. Statute requires that no more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the Plan Amendment. And tonight is that first public hearing. Statute also requires that two years must elapse before council consider can consider an amendment to the plan. If you previously failed to approve the Urban Redevelopment Plan amendment for this project, same as with the BLOCK three project. This is the first consideration by Council of an Urban Redevelopment Plan amendment for this project. Finding that the project is in conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. We also took this plan amendment to Planning Board on January 18th, 2017, with the same result where Planning Board voted unanimously with one abstention, to find that the proposed amendment to the St Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to the Denver Comprehensive Plan and its applicable supplements. And a letter to that effect has again been submitted to you as part of this hearing. The Saint Anthony 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 same art scene at the new Urban Redevelopment Area by Private Enterprise. Again, the Denver Housing Authority will be the developer of the BLOCK Nine Project, and their mission includes the provision of affordable housing for special populations, including the elderly and the disabled. We must find that 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 the development within the Sloan's BLOCK nine project area for the period during which incremental taxes are paid to the authority. And again, the plan allows for such cooperative agreements to be put in place between the city and Duryea to address those additional infrastructure and services needs should they arise. And the Urban Renewal Authority has notified the boards of each other. Taxing entities whose incremental property tax revenue would be allocated under the plan and has in an agreement has been negotiated governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue. So very similar to what we had discussed previously. There are as a result of bringing forward this amendment after the applicability of House Bill 1348, we now are required to enter into agreements with those three taxing entities. Those, again, are Denver Public Schools, urban drainage and flood control. And this out of South Sloan's Lake metropolitan districts. Again, we we have already negotiated an agreement with DPS, the school funding agreement, where we will be paying DPS in total $2.5 million over ten years from the property tax increment generated from blocks one, two and four. And again, they're scheduled. Annual payment will be made in priority above any repayment to block three or block nine. This is probably a good time to say that the remaining amount of the property tax increment coming from blocks one, two and four after we've made that annual schedule payment to DPS, is expected to be generally applied 5050 between BLOCK three and BLOCK nine. Our goal is to try to repay those obligations at or about the same time. Since there is no additional student impact contemplated from the BLOCK nine project, DPS was willing to accept the previously negotiated agreement as full satisfaction of the redevelopment impact from the St Anthony's Urban Redevelopment area, including that of BLOCK BLOCK nine. Similarly, we noticed urban drainage and flood control of the of the BLOCK nine project. And again they concluded that the BLOCK Nine Project would have minimal impact on their services and have determined that there should be no change in the way that the property tax increment from blocks one through seven would be addressed, even as we are using a portion of that for BLOCK Nine and similarly for the South Sloan's Metropolitan District, same agreement is in place that we have already agreed that any amount of incremental property taxes attributable to the R.M. Levy will be paid over to them upon receipt by URA. We are so pleased to work with the city and DHL on this on this exciting project. It isn't very often that we have a public public, public partnership in in the works here. That is exactly what we have with DHS being the developer, bringing forward the much needed affordable housing for this special population in this area, as well as being successful in bringing back a medical presence on this site following the departure of the of the the hospital. So, again, happy to answer any questions. I realized I went through that fairly quickly, but so much of it would have been a repeat of what I said previously. Hopefully I didn't miss anything. Happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for the condensed report. Government can get something done. That's awesome. All right. We have two individuals this evening speaking, Cameron Bertrand and Ryan Tobin. Cameron, you're up first. Mr. Bertrand Excuse me. Hello again, everybody. Cameron Bertrand 1145. Gillard Street, Denver. Also here again, as the property owner, I would just echo what I said previously about everyone's help and seeing this come about. It's particularly nice in this instance where we're using tax increment to bring forward this level of affordability but also bring health care back to the state. I just echo what Tracy said. This is something that was set forward as a goal by Denver many, many years ago. And being here tonight is a is a nice feeling. I would I would add two things to this. One is I would think, Darrell, one more time for the Main Street coalition, which was an EPA grant that they got in Denver got and those funds were really instrumental in bringing about this project. On the early days, when it wasn't sure would happen. I think they have been unfailing partners in a complex, long conversation. And finally, something that you may not know, but the dormitory that was on this site previously was housed, the kids from the Yeshivah Haim Torah Jewish Boys School, and they've been in the neighborhood for 50 years this year. And this project enabled them to use the proceeds from the acquisition of that building to build a new dorm and recommit and stay in the neighborhood for another 50 years. So oftentimes projects like this can have a disrupting effect on the historic members of a community. And in this case were not only able to add almost 200 units of new affordable housing, but we were able to keep the folks who've been there recommitted to the neighborhood. So I think that's a nice add to this one. Thanks. And again, to the question. Yeah, thank you. Mr.. Ryan Tobin.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Ryan Tobin. 2515 Lawrence Street, Denver, Colorado. Here on behalf of Denver Housing Authority, as you heard, where the developer of this fun project. But as everybody has mentioned, these projects don't happen overnight. So we're very excited about narrowing in on actually closing and breaking ground on this, which will happen sometime in July. So we still have our work ahead of us, but this is the first big step for us to make our advancements forward in this program. And so we're happy to be here. Excited about the project and delivering that in the Sloan's development, because it's an amazing area for us to be a part of. We always look at having affordable housing solutions within the context of larger developments that are happening so that we do have that affordability that happens within these neighborhoods. And this is a special one where we're able to boast almost 20% of the total units that we'll be meeting that 60% and below EMI with our participation in this project. So I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Tobler. All right. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? All right, Councilman Espinosa. I do have a question just because, Cameron, you touched on it, but it's probably it's really a question for all of you. And I don't know. I mean, I don't expect you to answer. You have the solution now, but there is a historic Orthodox Jewish family tradition. Do or or, you know, tradition of resonance in this area. And one concern with all of this new development in the size of the units to what Councilman Lopez was saying before, is that our new housing isn't doesn't captured the size of households that those Orthodox Jewish families are. And my concern is there is a 50 year history of the yeshiva there. Do you guys, through developers, do DHEA have the tools to do housing preservation for those sorts of family units and family sizes? You know, if you don't have the answer here today, I'm challenging you guys to be willing to sort of come back to my office with those ideas, because that's a conversation I've had with the Orthodox Jewish families in the community, along with the sort of historic Catholic families, the larger Catholic families in that community. And so as development is pushing for, you know, putting greater and greater pressure in there, it's it's not promoting those sort of households. And it becomes a real difficult equation for the development and subsidy teams. But I do I don't have those answers. And so I'm throwing it out there for you guys to consider, because I do want to see the issue there in 50 years to be thriving as well as it has for the last 50 things. Sorry, it's not really a question. Rhetorical. I guess the public here for Council Bill 57 is close, comes by the council because when as often as we can I'm so sorry I asked that question, but I didn't want to put it in my comments. But once again. Yes. This this was a I'm not going to deny this is a step above and beyond what I think. You know, ESG and company came in here a bit off, you know, bit off, you know, for this redevelopment to figure out how to capture additional development outside of your seven blocks and to then bring both health care, deep affordability for seniors, which there is a large senior population in this area. So once again, this is using all those resources that we have as a city, using the the skill set the master developer has to to sort of bring entities together and actually get the outcomes that really sort of, you know, help create can maintain the diversity of this neighborhood. So I, I just want once again, I want to commend you all for what you've done and the outreach that you've you've had and throughout this process. And so, again, Cameron, Ryan and Tracy, thank you, guys. Happy to say thank you because when. Espinosa Councilman Creech.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add my thank you to this team. This was a very long conversation. And I guess there's two milestones that I want to just note, which is one. Urban renewal projects in Denver had long included some affordable housing through the advocacy. A lot of this council, not by policy but by advocacy, including from Councilwoman Ortega and her first terms in council before these terms that she's serving now as well as other champions. But it was a newer tool to actually use it to finance entirely affordable projects in this way. And Mary Crest is an example of one of those up and also in Council District one. And I think this is another great example where there used to be this feeling there's just not enough increment created to fund an affordable housing piece. But you know, both with a little bit of flexibility in the in the state law and with these larger sites being able to bring an entire affordable housing project to bear as part of a mixed income community rather than just a few units as part of a building is a really long trajectory. And in a just, you know, for those who may be newer in council, I just want to note that this is a more recent phenomenon and it's a big deal because it brings you a much larger quantity of units. And that's what this that's what this vote tonight represents, is, is, is 176 units. You know, it's not 17 or, or a handful that we got in the inclusionary approach. So so I just wanted to note that and thanked her for the work that they've had to do to kind of get to this different model rather than , than thinking about these as how much increment is generated right here on this parcel. Right? So, so it took some creativity and flexibility and then to the development team, you know, Cameron this we talk about block nine as if it was a neat block just waiting to be purchased. Right. And that's of course not what occurred here. There were many parcels owned by different owners. And for some of us, we felt really strongly that this site would not be complete without more than what was on the seven blocks that you had. And we pushed you and we we we asked you to do more. And you did. You went out and and you saw the opportunity. And I think that I hope and I believe that you saw that we that this complemented the entire site. And so it wasn't just because council was asking and because the community was asking, but there was a value to having that Colfax piece completed and and bringing together the entire Colfax frontage. So so I think there is a win here for this entire community in terms of the wholeness that it has with this. There's certainly a win for the seniors and the disabled folks who will be seated here. And you once asked me, do you realize how much work this is? And let me just publicly say I acknowledge how very difficult this was to get to this day. And I appreciate the effort as I know the community does, because much of this, you know, is coming from the residents of the community who were seeing change. They were seeing gentrification, they were seeing displacement. And they wanted to see a significant outcome here. And this is one piece of that. We know that some of these residents will come from the north side and west side, you know, where there may be other redevelopment activities. So it will be a chance to keep some folks in a nearby community. And that is I just want it for our residents and our public who say, how are we doing things to help displacement. New housing can be a tool to fight displacement if you have a place to bring folks who may be getting redeveloped into a nearby neighborhood. And so that's that's what this project represents as well. So why don't you make sure that was on the record for our residents who are always asking that question and just to say thank you to the entire team as well as DHS and OED. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman do.
Speaker 10: Congratulations, community? This project is going to be great and special. We couldn't do without the partners, you know, with our door and the Denver Housing Authority. It is just unbelievable what our partners do for our city, you know, and especially Dura Joshi, you and your staff bring in that expertize and the support. I don't know how we would do without you. It's just fantastic. And the whole role that the Denver Housing Authority plays for our whole city, it's just, just very, very rewarding. And we appreciate everything that you're doing. Congratulations on this project. I'm looking forward to see all the affordable housing like councilwoman initiative.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman new Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to seriously add my profound thanks to be able to sit through two public hearings without having to beg, connive, encourage. An affordable housing component is really a wonderful experience. I know it was difficult to put all the pieces together, but certainly addresses maybe the most profound crisis our city faces. I would echo what Councilman Espinosa and Lopez were talking about in the need for larger units. And I would encourage can I beg plead that you do what you can in that direction because it is important to preserve these communities. But for what you've done here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. I think that begging, conniving and pleading happened to three years ago. Thank you, guys for how hard you guys have worked on this. It's exciting to see this project come to fruition and with that kind of secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. Kenny Lopez.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 3: New Ortega Sussman. Black Clark. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close to voting and announce the results. 3913 EIS Council 57 has passed. Congratulations. All right. On Monday, March. Oh, yeah, that's right. We got a we got to do 58. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put the companion Bill 58 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing and approving an amendment to the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the Sloans Block 9 Project.
Approves an amendment to the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloans Block 9 Project to authorize the use of property tax increment financing (“TIF”) to provide funding for development to include approximately 176 units of income restricted permanently affordable senior and disabled housing, up to 20,000 square feet of ground floor medical office and clinic space, 6,500 square feet of senior activity center, a publicly accessible 5,000 square foot amenity deck and 125 parking spaces in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-24-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02062017_17-0002
|
Speaker 1: All right. Madam Secretary, will you be able to. You said 17. For the record, 17 000 to. 17 zero 0 to 4. A vote comes from ago. Gilmore, would you please put Resolution 17 0002 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolution, resolution 000, to be placed on the floor for final adoption.
Speaker 1: Okay. It has been moved and seconded comes by members of council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah, sort of in the public comment prior to this, there was a an employee who's been before council several times before with certain grievances about pay rates and pay scales and whatnot. And, and I can appreciate that. But I do think the city does as good a job as any in being fair. That said, this is a contract that is for $480,000 for three years for a part time work up to 20 hours a week, which just seems it just you know, I don't know if that is, in fact, the going rate of that skill set that was not presented to us at committee. So but it does seem like an egregious amount of money for one person for a part time job. And so for that reason, I will was asking for a vote so I can vote.
Speaker 1: No, thank you. Okay, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: So two things. First, I'd like to ask Kelly lead if you would please come forward and address the issue raised by Councilman Espinosa. And then I have a question as well. Okay.
Speaker 3: Hello and good evening. My name is Kelly LEED. I'm the executive director of the Mayor's Office of the National Action Center, overseeing the implementation of the Ash Monster Project on behalf of the city. So the question if I understand the question, it's specific to the rate. So just I think it's important to have a little context with this this contract in particular. So when we were when the literally it was just myself and a couple people and we were challenged with the idea of trying to put before the state our Regional Tourism Act application. We had to assemble a team to pull that document together and some of the things that we had to do were building out an estimate of probable costs and understanding some of the entertainment venues. Certainly I have some of that experience, but it was important that we had someone that was had done it more, more recently than I and was more connected to the market. So long story short, this firm had actually done some work previously for arts and venues and had done some work on the Coliseum for APD. And so through that I met the owner of the company and and ended up being able to include him in some work to help us get through that art, which ultimately led to the largest grant approval by the state, 121 million that goes into the kitty to to make that project happen. Specific to your question, though, I will tell you that the expertize that this firm brings and Eric Schifrin in particular is invaluable for us advancing this program, which is, as many of you know, is very complicated and very complex with a lot of moving parts. And you would not be able to bring on, in my humble opinion, having done this now for some 20 plus years, someone that would be willing to work part time on an on a task order basis to deliver the the value we're going to get out of the expertize that this firm will bring to our project. Because the decisions we're going to make for which this firm will help us deliver this project are in the tens of millions of dollars in terms of the impact those decisions will have. So I would tell you that, again, in my humble opinion, that the contract is of great value to the city and one that I would have not put forward before this council if I did not believe that were the fact.
Speaker 1: Because we weren't taking them.
Speaker 6: So, Kelly, the question I wanted to ask you about the funds that cover the cost of this contract, are they, in fact, coming out of the 800 million that was voter approved or is this general fund money?
Speaker 3: These are not these are not general fund dollars. These are part of the $856 million project that was approved by the voters of Denver.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That. Okay, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank, Mr. President. Mostly a comment on what Kelly wants to. Speak to it. But I just want to point out that, again, the uncanny ability of some of our agencies to put out the initial contracts just below the half million dollar threshold that would have to come to us. This seems like a project that we should have known. Our contract that we should have known would go beyond half million dollars. And here we are with a team already in place. I don't want to say that our hands are tied because we can always vote no, but we have a team already in place and it practically compels us to keep them on the job. And that's a position that I'm very uncomfortable with. And I would like to to find a path forward where we don't have to have this situation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Just let the public know this was in committee. We had a full discussion on this. And this brings the expertize to probably one of the most complex projects that we've had in a long time. I'll be voting yes as it lies in a fine District nine. All right, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Rocco Espinosa.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: Flynn, I Gillmor I Herndon Cashman can eat new Ortega I Sussman I Black Clerk.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes, one nay.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes, one nay. Council Bill. I'm sorry. Resolution 0002 has been adopted. Now, did I miss anyone else? Four bills being called out. I looked down the row real quick. Okay. All other bills for introduction are now court ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members, please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, it's your last chance to call a random person provoked. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put the resolutions for adoption on the floor and on final consideration and the final passage on the floor?
Speaker 4: 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. 00610062. Six three. 1247 1248. 0047. 00480052. 0030004650 1239. 0059. 00600064. 0049005500560057. Oh 58.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think we missed a couple here. You're right. On to 0060.
Speaker 4: Oh, sorry.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And the next one is 0064.
Speaker 4: All right. Let me move back up here. All right. Sorry, I'm having to scroll through everything here. So, 006400492.
Speaker 1: No, not 4929. Yeah. Those are the ones on final consideration. You want to help?
Speaker 5: Sorry. She has she actually has a different screen.
Speaker 4: She screen is.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you're having.
Speaker 4: To scroll through.
Speaker 5: Everything is mine. Okay, let me get you in the right spot. So.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you. 640029. 42, 43, 24, 33, 39. And I think that covers it.
Speaker 1: That covers it, Madam Secretary. We didn't put a series of 2000 1617. That's okay.
Speaker 2: Right there at 17. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Okay. Should be okay. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, teamwork makes your dream work. It's been moved in second at roll call. Madam Secretary, black tie.
Speaker 2: Clark Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I printed I. Cashman. I can eat new Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I police clothes. Very nice.
Speaker 2: Results of ice.
Speaker 1: 12 Ice. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration. Do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 1166 change the zoning classification from 16 zero one West Jewel Avenue.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution for approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and SII, LLC to increase the maximum contract amount and extend the term.
Adds two years and $481,750 to a contract with SII, LLC for a new total contract amount of $980,155 and a new end date of 12-31-19 for continued portfolio integration management services for the National Western Center campus development project including the project master plan development, program facility development, and facility program documents and procurement documents for the delivery of the project (201520513-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-27-17. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-10-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02062017_16-1166
|
Speaker 1: On the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must director comments. The Council members please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 161166 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1166 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has it has been moved in second at the hearing for council bill 161166 is open. I mean, we have a staff report, Curt Upton in the house.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. Good evening, Curt Upton with Community Planning and Development. Tonight we have a rezoning at 1601 West Jewel and Council District seven. It's in the Ruby Hill neighborhood, and specifically it's located adjacent to Ruby Hill Park, just west of Ruby Hill Park and just east of Raritan Street. The current zoning for the site is ESU X, which is a single unit zoned district, and it's surrounded by single unit districts of former Chapter 59 zoning code as well as the current Denver zoning code. Open space to the East, which is Ruby Hill Park and to the Southeast, some industrial mixed use or IMX three. The subject site is almost nine and a half acres and the requested zone district is a PWD plan. Urban Development as requested to address unique use and uses and the unique location of the site. So I'll give a brief overview of the proposed PD g 14. There is two base zoning districts that were used to create this custom zoned district. The mx2x district was used as the base zone district to prepare design standards and form standards. But some of the customizations in the PD include very large building and tower setbacks. One of the proposed uses on the site is a replacement telecommunications tower. There's an existing telecommunications tower on the site, and the setbacks will limit development on the site to only approximately a third of the total site. All square footage combined in new buildings will be limited to 100,000 square feet, total or less. The building height is limited to 35 feet, which is the same as the current single unit zoned district as well as the surrounding single unit zoned districts. There's also a design standards that limit the bulk and the visual impacts of the proposed telecommunications tower. And the PD will require an improved and visible public pedestrian walkway through the site that connects the community to the north, to the public right away on Jewel Avenue to the south and a bus line. The second based on district is the Jaro district, which is a residential office district. This zone district was used to create customized uses for the PD, so office and residential uses are allowed in the PD hotel or any lodging. Medical offices are not allowed and there are some limited commercial uses that include an eating and drinking establishment with some additional restrictions, one being what we call a Z pen, which requires a public information notice. And there are limitations on the distance or the proximity to residential zoned districts. Any eating and drinking establishment would need to be located a minimum of 150 feet away from a residential zone district, and the total square footage for that use would be limited to 5000 square feet or less. So now I'll get in a little more to the existing context. Again, the existing use on site is a telecommunications tower and a very small office slash storage facility surrounding it as single family multifamily industrial in Ruby Hill Park to the east. Here's some photographs that gives you a sense of the existing context. A large open area characterizes the site. Again, with existing telecommunications tower and smaller nonresidential structure in terms of the public process, it was very extensive, the most extensive zoning process I've ever been a part of. For a single case. It was nearly a year long, very collaborative with the neighborhood and the applicant is here and we'll get into more of the details of that process. There's also a summary of the process that's included in your materials and then the standard notification in terms of planning board signs and so on and so forth were provided. There's a letter of support in the materials from the Ruby Hill Gottesman Neighborhood Associations and letters of support from the Denver Housing Authority, former councilman Chris Nevitt and the Overland Neighborhood Association as well. So we'll get into our review criteria, the first being consistency with adopted plans. There are two adopted plans for this location a comprehensive plan 2000 and Blueprint. Denver Blueprint. Denver character designates this location as open space as an area of stability and Jewel Avenue as a residential collector to the south, air is a stability. The goals of areas of stability is to maintain the existing character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. While Open Space Limited is not specifically designed to find in the blueprint. Denver Open spaces are generally described as places that range from neighborhood to community parks to larger preserves and natural open areas that provide places for the community to gather and for wildlife habitat. Residential collectors are designed to provide a balance between mobility and land access, with a mix of uses that include residential, commercial, industrial areas and are designed to emphasize walking, bicycling and land access over other forms of mobility. And significantly, for this site to create connections that emphasize walking, bicycling and vehicular connections to Denver's parks. So with that, I will move on to the uniform of district regulations and furthering the public health, safety and welfare. We do find that this rezoning proposal is consistent with the goals of Blueprint Denver and Complement. Plan 2000 noted that the rezoning limits development on the site significantly, nearly two thirds of the site will remain as open space due to the design standards in the PD, which we find consistent with Blueprint Denver, as well as the designation for Jewel Avenue to create more of a mixed use collector's streets, which this Stone District does facilitate. We do find that it furthers the uniformity of district regulations, public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances include significant improvements and investments in the adjacent Ruby Hill Park. There has been some additional recreational facilities, but also cultural facilities. Significantly, the pavilion is under construction now, which will create a community gathering spot for the neighborhood and create more of an active park. And obviously this proposed rezoning is consistent with the idea of creating Ruby Hill Park as a as a as a rural neighborhood focal point and a gathering place and as a neighborhood destination. We all find. We also find that it's consistent with the neighborhood context and the zone district purpose and intent. The urban edge and neighborhood context requires a varied development pattern, promotes a greater mix of uses, and improves a transition from commercial and residential uses. The grow or residential office zone district allows, obviously both residential and office uses, but specifies a low to moderate scale residential building form. And the proposed PD meets both of these intents in the Denver zoning code. There's also additional review criteria for pads in the Denver zoning code, and I'll quickly give a summary of those criteria. The first is unique and extraordinary circumstances. This site is unique in that there is an existing large telecommunications tower on the site that's located in an interior location of a residential neighborhood and adjacent to a significant city asset in Ruby Hill Park. Because of the existing location and the existing uses on the site, we feel that it meets the criteria for unique and extraordinary circumstance that requires a unique approach and a customized approach to the zoning regulation. Public benefit is the second review criteria. As I mentioned previously, there are very large setbacks are required and the proposed PD that limits development on the site to approximately a third of the site. The zoning will also allow a greater mix of uses to encourage that neighborhood gathering area and community destination, as well as a required public pedestrian walkway that connects D.J. and the neighborhoods to the north through the site to transit facilities on the south. The third criteria is that the proposed development is not feasible under any other zoned district. There is no other zoned district in the Denver zoning code that has these specific design standards and uses as those proposed in the proposed pudi. The next criteria are that uses are compatible with adjacent land uses. We find that the limitations on retail, hotel, lodging and medical office uses does lend itself to being compatible with the adjacent residential character and neighborhood surrounding and that the building forms are compatible with adjacent building forms. Again, there are very large setbacks that require a very large distance from adjacent buildings. The maximum building height, again in the proposed zone district, is the same as a single unit district to the west. It's also the same as the current zoning on the site, which is a single district, and there are tower design standards. And one of the significant benefits of the tower design standards is that it prohibits guy wires, which are the wires that create visual clutter and bulk, and those are existing on the site. Now with the existing tower, the new replacement tower will be prohibited to having guy wires. So with that, CPD does find that all of our review criteria have been met and therefore recommend approval.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Kurt, we have three speakers for Council Bill 1166. And I'm going to call them up right now. And you can come up to the front here, Jenny Gentry, Bruce O'Donnell and Sharona Thompson. Jenny Gentry, you're up first with 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm Jenny Gentry. I'm the senior vice president for finance and administration at Colorado Public Radio, where I've worked for the past 33 years. I am grateful for your time this evening to hear about our exciting final conclusion, I hope, to the zoning process. I want to tell you first a little bit about Colorado Public Radio and who we are. We're a501c3. We've been serving the Denver community since 1970. We now have three program services. We have all news, all classical and a new format, which is open air, new music, which has been on the air since 2011. We have 30 signals around the state. We have approximately 600,000 listeners every week, and we have another 200,000 that tune in online in a given month. So we have a pretty huge footprint serving the state with what I like to call 72 hours of programing a day. The budget's $17 million. This year, we have about 110 employees. We're currently housed in a building down in Centennial that was donated to us in 2004. We are as we began this conversation years ago, we are at a point where we will outgrow that building at some point in the fairly near future and are looking at our options of where we could move our headquarters and our studios and all of our employees. One of the first places we looked is at the nine and a half acres that we own on Ruby Hill. After preliminary conversations with the city, it became very clear that we had a number of zoning issues to tackle. The unique situation that Kurt has described between the park and the neighborhood. We have a tall tower that's a currently illegal non-conforming use with a residential zoning, and we're in the Ruby Hill View plane. I think one thing Curt didn't mention is we did get The View Plain approved by Planning Board late last year. So when we began talking to the city, what they suggested would be a great idea was that this would be a good project to have a conversation with the neighborhood and engage the neighborhood before we filed an application. And that was important to us and we had no preconceived notions of what that would look like. Sharona can talk a little bit about how that went, I think, from the neighbor perspective. For us, it was a wonderful opportunity to try to meet our needs, the neighbors desires and work within the Denver zoning code. City CPD has been amazing to work with Dolan's office and previously with with Councilman Leavitt's office is where we kind of started the conversation. So it's really been this ongoing conversation of how do we make it work for all of us. The example I always like to use is we said if we develop this property, we're going to need the tower, a building and parking. One of the first things the neighbor said is We want the parking as far away from the houses as we can get because of heat and and other considerations. Great. We can do that. So let's put the parking blocks. So when you see kind of the blocks that we came up with, we can put the parking, you know, over on the side. So it was that kind of interactive process. We went through a full use table when we went through the grow use table and the uses that that Curt outlined. We actually did that collaboratively with the neighbors. We had multiple meetings, we had a working group, and then we would go back to the full neighborhood association over a course of meetings. It's a very interactive process. Steve Charbonneau helped facilitate those meetings. And it was really a great way to engage all of us to come to a what I believe is a good solution. All of that was done before we filed the application. Um. I think that's all I've got. I'm happy to answer questions. I'm here for the evening. I thank you for your consideration and would respect. Respect, respectfully request approval of our rezoning.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Gentry can have a seat there. Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council. I am Bruce O'Donnell, 770 Sherman Street in Denver. I've been the CPAs owners.
Speaker 8: Rep on this for I think three.
Speaker 3: Years now almost. And I'm here in the.
Speaker 1: Event you have any questions I can answer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Sharon Thompson. Sharona Thompson. Sorry about that.
Speaker 7: It's okay.
Speaker 9: Hi. My name is Sharona Thompson, and I am currently the Ruby Hill Gottesman, co-president. And I've been a resident of Ruby Hill for six years and serving as a president for my third year. I actually live on Raritan and Jewel Street and my house backs that big open field of nine and a half acres. And I know that field pretty well. I can see it out my window. And a lot of the neighbors that border, that field have been very concerned about fire problems, which we actually had this summer. And the fire came up to about ten feet behind about ten houses. And those guide wires actually go right behind my house and they pop when there's static. And so when CPR approached our neighborhood about the possibility of building their headquarters, we were very interested. And, you know, we had a bunch of meetings about possibilities and they've been very receptive and listening to our concerns. One of them is that public housing has apartments over at Ruby Hill Park, and I see a lot of people walking through the field to get to the bus stops or to school, and they're trudging through snow in mud. And they've been really receptive to building sidewalks for our our neighbors to take care of their needs. We've taken one step at a time, going through the zoning and what that looks like. They've been receptive to even the interest that we have in our neighborhood of promoting pollinators and planting zero escaping pollinating plants as part of their landscaping. So we have a lot of people who want to get involved and are interested in using the space for community events as well. We appreciate that, though. They're willing to put the parking lot on the other side of the building. And we we're really excited that that offers more parking space for concerts in the evening because as we've been working with Leavitt Pavilion in parking areas, that is another thing that we can offer to concerned neighbors. And so it's really been a pleasure working with CPR and that they came in willing to work with us and not just impose something on the neighborhood, but really collaborate together. So all 13 houses that back that property, everyone is in support of CPR coming to our neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Thompson. All right. This concludes our speakers. You guys can go back to your seat or you can sit up here. We're going to have some questions for members of council. Any questions for members of council? All right. Seeing none of the public hearing for council. But. Oh.
Speaker 6: I had my name plugged in.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Ortega. Go ahead. Please excuse the knock. We're going to go with that.
Speaker 6: I just. I just wanted to find out who maintains that open space right now. Is that done by CPR or is that done by Parks and Rec? And will that change after the move and then construct the development of the new building?
Speaker 4: CPR is on the land since 2001 and we maintain it and that would continue to be the case.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Then look down one more time. Okay, good. All right. This concludes the council. Bill. 11166 is not closed. Comes firms of counsel, counseling clerk.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to you know, this was an interesting one that came very quickly after I was in office, had already been started by my predecessor, Chris Nevitt. The conversations and this has all of the pieces for a recipe for something that's very contentious it's right by a single family homes is adjacent to a park and it's in a view plane. You know, if you could write anything that would be more controversial. And I have been so impressed with the process here, and I think that that's evident tonight. And seeing that everyone here is in support and everyone's feeling like this has been a really good process. I remember observing at one of the early meetings when the CPR team said, Look, if you don't want us to do this, then we won't. And I think that that kind of approach really is very different than somebody coming in and saying, hey, we're going to do this. And here's our here's what we what we want to do. Is there something we can throw in to make to sweeten the deal for you so that you'll stop complaining? And it wasn't that at all. It was very much a we would really like to be here. We would like to be a part of this community. We have some needs. This is a strange piece of property with a lot of stuff going on that doesn't fit into our normal zoning code. So let's have a conversation about what it would look like for you all to want us to be here as much as we want to be here. And so it was just I just want to commend the process, the CPR team, everybody who is involved. Sharon, on my awesome R.A. presence, thank you for all of your time that you put into this and to everything else that you do for for Ruby Hill and Local District seven. And so I think this has been a great process and I'm very excited to support this and ask all my colleagues to support it tonight as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Councilman Clark. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I just wanted to speak to that as well. You know, it's it was it's refreshing to have something that could be controversial, but have a good owner owner that puts together a good team and good dialog with the community. And to somehow get to, you know, to to to avoid what potentially could, could flare up and go a whole lot of sideways actually be a really, a really, really nice thing. So I just wanted to say that that was observed throughout the process. And so thank you all for for doing what you did. And I'm happy to be supporting this as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't want to let this moment go by without making a historical note, if I might. What a pleasure it is to see Colorado Public Radio occupy that site. It was known for many years as Chateau Ruby Hill and the home of my former colleague. The late and much beloved Jean Abell, who founded was a co-founder of Kadeem and Cave Body, which broadcasts from up on top of Ruby Hill in the fifties and sixties. And and a lot of folks from Denver will remember those days. And it's a particular pleasure that the classical format that Jean loved, he'd like to wake people up with Vivaldi in the morning that that will be broadcast again from from the top of Ruby Hill. And I very much treasure that memory. So I'm very pleased to support this zoning change and wish you much, much success. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Councilman Flynn, our council historian. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Yes, that's always a tough act to follow. I just wanted to add my support as well. I have enjoyed spending time in Ruby Hill Park, having played ball in the you know, in the ball fields there on various teams. Over the years, my grandkids have played there and have really seen the transformation of the park as a whole. And with CPD's commitment to, you know, moving moving back to Denver, if you will, I think it's it's exciting to see all the synergy that's happening with, you know, the the work that was done with the pavilion at the top. When I first came back to the council, we actually had a of a barbecue up there for all the council members to get to know one another because we had so many. New people coming on at the same time. But to see that it's all been embraced by the communities is really the exciting part about it all as well. So I just want to say congratulations for the collaborative work that you've done with the neighborhood and the neighborhood, embracing them, being there, and the improvements that will happen as a result of that. So I'm happy to support this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Clerk AI.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore, I Herndon Cashman. Hi. Can each new Ortega assessment? Hi, Black. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I police lost voting and as a result, 12 eyes 12 eyes council bill 1166 has passed. Congratulations.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 1601 W. Jewell Avenue.
Rezones property located at 1601 West Jewell Avenue from E-SU-Dx to PUD G-14 (office and telecommunications tower to planned development) in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-29-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02062017_16-1309
|
Speaker 1: I police lost voting and as a result, 12 eyes 12 eyes council bill 1166 has passed. Congratulations.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay, we have one more council. Well, Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 13 zero nine on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1309 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second in a hearing for Council Bill 13 zero nine is now open. May we have the staff report at lisa hall.
Speaker 4: Good evening, president and members of council on spoke with community planning and development here to present the case at 3087 South Sheridan. The existing zoning on the site is former Chapter 50 excuse me, former Chapter 59 B2 with waivers and the proposal is to go to SCC three X. Moving on to side two, you can see that the subject property is located in Council District two and in the Bear Valley neighborhood. On Slide four is a map of the subject property, location, aerial. And it is at the southwest corner of Colgate in South Sheridan Boulevard, near the Bear Valley Shopping Center. The property itself is a bit under one acre and it is currently used as a vacant surface parking lot. The request is to rezone from former Chapter 50 9b2 with waivers to a3x. The specific request is in the suburban neighborhood context. CC Standing for commercial corridor three is a maximum building height of three stories, and that X means that there's additional use limitations that are more stringent than those in, say, the SCC three. In the review of the existing context, the zoning of the property to the south is a3x with the property to the West as B2 with waivers, and the North is a former Chapter 59 PD and across the street to the east as assumed, which is a single unit zoned district. Bear Valley Shopping Center is primarily B3, which is a former Chapter 59 zoning as well as some other SCC three x. Specifically, though, what is currently on the site is two waivers. The first is leaving the right to allow for any sort of adult uses. It's important to note here that now adult uses are captured within a use overlay which cannot be mapped or expanded in the city of Denver. So it's currently not allowed on this site and the rezoning will not enable for any adult uses on the site. Secondarily, in the primary purpose of the rezoning is the waiver to construct anything within 100 feet of South Sheridan with a the zone lot of a depth of about 112 feet. It really prohibits any sort of development from occurring on the site. And through the evaluation of this, the intent to waive that really wasn't seemed to be important moving forward as all the rest of the area has developed since then, as this is very old waivers. The waivers were in play prior to the Bear Valley Shopping Center. So as we can see, more development has occurred. That is within 100 feet of South Sheridan and this is a remnant of it pardon. So from an existing land use perspective, the site is considered surface parking. There is an office tower and bank to the west and then we have some commercial uses to the north and south as well as quasi judicial to the east and single family residential to the northeast to acquire ourselves a little bit more with the suburban type of development. The top right photo is that of a Walgreens and the bottom is that of the site that you can see currently. So the process that has moved forward for this case has been standard with standard notification of notice to R.A., as well as sign posting on the property notifying of the planning board which recommended approval of the site. Notice for land use, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as notifications of this hearing here tonight. As of the date of this report as well as this evening, we have not received any comments specific to this application. Therefore, as we move through the rezoning criteria, we do have two citywide plans to review Plan 2000 as well as blueprint done for the land use and transportation plan. Comp Plan 2000 provides a variety of strategies. Few that I'll just highlight are promoting infill development within sites that already have the infrastructure in place, focusing our development along arterial corridors to understand their importance for commercial activity and encouraging infill development that's consistent with the character. Moving on to Blueprint Denver. The subject property is considered a town center which is intended to provide uses that provide shopping, entertainment service, employment needs that not only serve the needs of the neighborhood but the larger region. It is an area of stability, meaning that we are wanting to maintain the current pattern of growth while accommodating for some reinvestment in the area. This is consistent with the street classification of South Sheridan Boulevard being a residential arterial, providing services for residences in the area and West Cole as an undesignated local. Moving further on to the other review criteria, we do find that this is uniform in the district regulations and application across the city. This application furthers the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of city adopted plans. SAP has also conducted a review of the B2 with waivers to the West and concluded that no adverse impacts will occur by removing this portion out of the B2 with waivers. The justifying circumstances is that since the time of these waivers in the early seventies, there's undergone significant redevelopment of the Baer Valley Shopping Center, changing the character of the area, making the site appropriate for development. And we find that it is consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent of the suburban neighborhood district. And as such, CPD does make the recommendation this evening to approve the rezoning based on the review that other criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. We have two speakers this evening. I loved him to come to the front. Troy Campbell and Lorraine Tucker. Campbell, your first 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Troy Campbell. I'm with coffee engineering and surveying address 4045.
Speaker 7: St Cloud Parkway in.
Speaker 3: Loveland. And I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Laurie Tucker.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you for allowing us to be here. My name's Laura Tucker. I'm with Verdad Real Estate located in Southlake, Texas. I'm here to answer any questions and. I don't know how to answer your questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Tucker. Welcome to Colorado. All right. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? All right. Seeing none that the public hearing for Council Bill 13 zero nine is now close. Comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: There we go. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to check to make sure this wasn't a mirage and that there actually was a reason requesting counsel to speak to my predecessor. Councilwoman Fox, I believe, had told me that there had not been a rezoning for the last six years, at least, of her tenure. So I imagine this is the seven year itch. I have had no concerns from any any constituents in my in my district or any other businesses. So I'm happy to support this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah.
Speaker 5: I feel guilty not asking a question since you came all the way from Texas. But I just wanted to take this moment to congratulate Aunt Elise. She is now the lead role of the slot home task force. So since I have chosen this venue, I'm going to do it. So thank you for taking that on. So sorry.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Are you excited to take that? I'm just joking. Okay. Councilman Nu.
Speaker 10: I just want to congratulate Councilman Flynn on getting a rezoning in his district. We've been waiting many, many a day for this event, and we want to remember this was not as big as the Super Bowl last night, but this is a great event. And so we're proud of what you're doing. I also had a question, if this is the second highest point in your district. I want to.
Speaker 3: Share.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no problem. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. That was in the vein of I forgot to ask that during the questions. But is this the highest rezoning we've had since we've been on council? May I respond to the scurrilous comments?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. No, it is not. It's in Bear Valley, so it's one of the lower points in the highest district in the city.
Speaker 1: If you can't have fun on council and can. Yeah. Hey, I want to just. Councilman as well as you back up.
Speaker 5: I just want to acknowledge Kevin's admission that he's worked on.
Speaker 1: The lowest point of of he.
Speaker 5: Involved in the lowest point of the district, too.
Speaker 1: Right. I want to thank everybody for for working hard on this. Councilman Flynn, congratulations on your first rezoning.
Speaker 3: May I make one more comment? Well, in a serious vein, when I said I've talked to some constituents, the business that's contemplated here, if I might, might I say. No. Okay. I've talked to some I've talked to some of the I've talked to some of the one of the in particular one of the business owners in the district who directly competes. And he had no serious concerns with it and and and isn't here to this evening as well. So with that, I suggest folks join me in voting. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. The wheels are falling off on this. Madam Secretary, take us home.
Speaker 2: Rocker Flynn, I, Gilmore, I Herndon I cash in. I can eat new Ortega I Sussman my black eye. Clark Espinosa.
Speaker 5: I Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I Please close the voting and announce the results. 1212 IES Council Bill 13 zero nine has passed. Congratulations. Monday, February 13th, the day before Valentine's Day, 2017. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 55, approving an amendment to the St Anthony's St Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan for Sloan's BLOCK three project and creating other signs
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3087 S. Sheridan Boulevard.
Rezones property located at 3087 South Sheridan Boulevard from Former Chapter 59 B-2 with Waivers to S-CC-3x (from the former Chapter 59 business zoning code to suburban commercial corridor) in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-20-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01302017_17-0040
|
Speaker 1: All right, now I'll do a quick recap on the resolutions we have Councilwoman Black, who has called out Resolution 40 for a vote on her bills for introduction. We have nothing on our bills for final consideration. We have nothing. And under pending, we have nothing. Madam Secretary, will you please put 40 on the screen? Councilman Herndon, will you please put resolution 40 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. I move the resolution for zero be adopted.
Speaker 1: All right, it has. Been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I'm just calling this out for a separate vote. My in-laws business will be impacted by this contract with CPS.
Speaker 1: All right. Any other comments by members of council? Has been moved in the manner of Secretary Roque off abstain.
Speaker 5: Clark Espinosa, i. Flynn, i. Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Catherine can eat. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Sussman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I was wondering about the results.
Speaker 5: A few people haven't voted.
Speaker 3: Oh, me. There you go.
Speaker 5: Council on Black.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Black voted to abstain.
Speaker 5: Sorry. That's correct. 12 ice one abstention to.
Speaker 1: Advise one abstention. Resolution 40 has been adopted. This concludes all the items that have been called out. All of the bills for introduction are now ordered published, were now ready for the Bloc vote on resolutions and bills. On final consideration, council members, please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote . Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Herndon, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President, I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on full consideration. Pass in the block. 2016 1303 2017 001 620 1736 2017 1720 1722, 20 1732, 20 1723, 20 1731 2017 00372038 2016 1192 2016 1211 2016 1212 and 2017 0018.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and seconded when I'm Secretary Rocha Black.
Speaker 5: I. Clark I. Espinosa.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Flynn i. Gilmore Herndon. Cashman Can each. Lopez All right. New Ortega. I. SUSMAN Mr. President, i. 3930.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, those quick with the gun there. Okay. 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Councilman Herndon, that was 9 minutes. For that, I believe that's a record. But tonight there will be a required public hearing. Council Bill 19 approving the First Amendments to the service plans to the Denver Union Station. Metropolitan districts number one, two, three and five. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters to see the council secretary to receive a speaker's card to fill out and return it during the
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and H.C. Peck and Associates, Inc. to allow the escrow funding to exceed $15,000, but not more than $500,000, for relocation reimbursements for the National Western Center Relocation Project.
Increases the allowable escrow funding to an amount not to exceed $500,000 in the agreement with H.C. Peck and Associates, Inc. due to real estate market conditions and the volume of reimbursements for owner and tenant relocations as part of the National Western Center project in Council District 9 (FINAN 201628161-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-21-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 1-17-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01232017_16-1139
|
Speaker 1: And I get that right. Okay, great. Madam Secretary, please bring up the first bill 1139 resolution. Councilman Flynn, your comment.
Speaker 6: Thing. Mr. President, I was going to make a comment, but I see that the clerk is here. Deborah Johnson, I wonder if you might want to come up, because I would make my comment in the form of a question. When we see contracts come amended with amendments for an amount that takes it over $500,000 when it would have ordinarily come to the council word over 500. And this this particular contract was led, I think, in 2013 for an amount that was about $500 under the threshold, and now we're amending it for another four years. So I'd just like to get your perspective on why you contract it that way, because we're always suspicious when it's done that way, that the foot in the door was to avoid coming to us in the first place. So and I know this is something that really needs to be done in your office. So. Clark Johnson.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn Yes, this is an amendment to an existing contract and basically that says two fold. Number one, we're extending the support and maintenance on the contract for another three years. And the reason we reopened the contract because we bought another module two for the on the existing contract. So that would be easier for the citizens to search for documents that are currently in our repository, about 11 million different documents.
Speaker 6: And this will take documents that are pre like mid-eighties and before and make them readable and searchable online searchable.
Speaker 3: It's key. We do have older documents out there, but it's not really easy to search. And we're buying a tool to make it much easier for citizens to search for those documents.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then just one last thing. Is this something that could not have been foreseen in the original contract that it came in $500 below the threshold where it would have had to come to us before?
Speaker 3: Well, the tool was just developed, and we're one of the first cities to use this tool with the existing vendor. So it was unforeseen at the time because it wasn't developed back in 2013.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement by and between the City and County of Denver and Kofile Technologies, Inc., to extend the term and add funds to make historic records available for public online access.
Adds $510,555 to and extends the contract with Kofile Technologies, Inc. for a new total amount of $ 1.01 million through 12-31-22 for online public access of searchable Real Estate and Marriage Certificate records (CLERK-201309360-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-13-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-15-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01232017_16-1317
|
Speaker 3: Well, the tool was just developed, and we're one of the first cities to use this tool with the existing vendor. So it was unforeseen at the time because it wasn't developed back in 2013.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 6: Thank very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. All right. Let's see. We're going to let's bring up the next agenda item for a vote council bill 1317. Is that okay? Councilman New. Will you please put this on the floor?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Rose. I move that resolution 16 dash 1317 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Yeah. The reasons why I'm calling this out for a vote is this. This resolution grants complete contracting latitude for up to $14 million for program. Managing that is TBD. To get this 14 million figure, the mayor's National Western Center office simply took 3% of the National Western Centers to see voter approved funds of 276 million. Well, it was stated that this number represents best practices. It is a very healthy amount for program management at this scale. Program management fees typically range from 1% to 5%. The higher percentages are typically found on relatively inexpensive projects. Once you enter the millions and tens of millions of dollars, program management fees move closer and closer to 1%, which tends to be a significantly large dollar amount. Well, I have faith that the NWC can and will capture the entirety of the NWC program management needs for the funds that will likely be allocated tonight. The millions of dollars in latitude that this generous contract provides makes me uncomfortable. By voting for this resolution, Council will choose to distance themselves and therefore the people of Denver out of a project that our voters supported based on certain outcomes. Once the contract is approved, the program management work that will be scoped will not require a vote by council. That distance is neither necessary or warranted. And for that reason, I will be voting no.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. I am going to. Since Councilwoman Kanis, did you. I saw you just pop in.
Speaker 3: Well, I wanted to ask Kelly to come forward, ask him a question, but I am happy to defer to you, Mr. President. And if you don't ask it, I'll turn back in. But go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. No, I. I think we may be asking similar questions, but maybe not. Kelly, can you come up? This obviously is in District nine. And and I'm going to ask you a very specific question. And this was on consent. It came off of consent so we could have a conversation about this. I think we went into detail about you having the city's best interests, but more important, the constituents best interests, 856 million reasons why. But tell us a little bit about Councilman Espinosa talked about the furthering that this contract what what would bring for council and I just want you said this already but please. Sure.
Speaker 5: Sure. So for purposes of discussion, my name is Kelly LEED, and I'm the executive director of the Mayor's Office of the National Western Center. And I appreciate the question. And, you know, because this is this is actually when you add in both the public money and the private money for the first couple of phases of this project , it's a $1.1 billion project that's been essentially approved by the public to advance. And, you know, we the National Western Office was established by the mayor in January of of this year to specifically make sure that there are very tight connections back to the city and to the council and to the citizens of Denver. You know, a lot of times when you bring on these program management teams, the entire effort is turned over to them. That does create separation. I would tell you the exact opposite happens. Here is what we've done is built. We are we are building an embedded team to him, which will be would be the program management team is embedding six people into the National Western Center office team. Those six people report to me directly. We are building a structure by which we advance this program which will take numerous years to complete. It includes if you know, and there's no single tenant for this project. We have obviously Colorado State University as a tenant and we have the Western Stock Show Association as a tenant. So we and we have funding coming from those respective partners as well. So this is a multilayered project that requires a level of expertize that I think stage two brings to this to this experience and to this team. So long story short, what this allows us to do, it's an it's a task based contract. So we will be issuing task orders with very specific deliverables to to and to our consultants to deliver. We fully intend and have continued to do in this dates back to my days in the NBCC. We go to LUDI and provide continuous updates to Ludy on our progress. We establish an annual workplan every march. We will do that again. We will report that work plan with milestones to the council and to the public. And then we will report out on our progress, not just on the delivery of the milestones, but on our budget, our scope and our schedule. As we move this project along, I will tell you that we're still at a place where we don't know what we don't know. And by that I mean is we're going to start to assemble the team that will begin to put detail to this effort and we will begin to put in front of councils a whole range of contracts in order for us to to implement this program over the course of the next the next several years.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just going to ask two narrow follow ups. So first question. This contract is for program management. It is not for construction of management. We are not seeding the future construction contracts that will be occurring on this. That is.
Speaker 5: Correct. Program continuing.
Speaker 3: Right. They will continue to come through the council process? That is correct. Okay. Second question is, this is not the first time we've had program management services. I'm thinking about the better Denver bond. How analogous would you say this role is to that? In terms of my understanding, the better Denver bond approach is that is about extending, for lack of a better word, the human power of the city for a time limited project without us bringing on permanent have to ease that we might not need at the end bring in some special expertize. How analogous would you say?
Speaker 5: I would say there there's a lot of analogies. I mean, I think the the the embedded structure that we're creating specific for this program, which is pretty unique, has some of its own unique features. But I think that idea of bringing an extended team on to add to the city team, knowing that we just don't have enough full time staff to do it, is, is an appropriate analogy. You know, the one and I think one of the things that came out of committee was, well, what's the legacy of. The program effort. And so I think, you know, Stephanie Reid is here with me. She's from Public Works and is a young and up and coming program and project manager. She's going to get to experience, along with other project managers in the city, the creation of this project. And so the legacy of a project like this is the experience that Stephanie and other project manager, city project managers are going to get that will allow the next generation of leaders in the city to do big programs like this. So we're very committed to doing that. But I think the analogy of better Denver and that role is is pretty close.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilman, as soon as I see Councilman Councilwoman Ortega in the queue, go to her real quick.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Can we have a couple of questions? So at the beginning of this project, there were some conversations about community benefit agreement and what that might look like. Has there been any progress in identifying any of those issues with the community? I know you meet with them on a regular basis. Some of them sit on. I'm not sure which level of committee because I think you've got multiple levels of committees involved in having input into the project. But can you just give us an update of kind of where that's at?
Speaker 5: Sure. So, you know, the group I think you're specifically referencing is the Citizens Advisory Committee, and that was actually founded by the Western Stock Show Association at the very beginning of our planning effort back in 2013, 2014, before we started the master plan. And that group of 27 people that live or work in those communities have been with us from day one. In the core of those 27, the core group continues to meet on a monthly basis with us. They played a huge role as an example as we worked through, you know, we did the neighborhood plans first, so we approved the Globeville plan first and at the end of 14 and then the Elyria Swansea plan in early 15, and then the National Western Plan was approved in March 15. That was intentional because we wanted to make sure that the neighborhoods really helped drive the kinds of improvements they wanted to see in their neighborhood. And so what's interesting about the National Western plan is it's not only a master plan for rebuilding the National Western Center, but it's specifically pulls things from those neighborhood plans that we then in turn have to implement. So in terms of benefits, there are direct physical connection improvements that were pulled out of the neighborhood, plans that could reconnect the site to both Globeville, to the West in response to the East. The second would be is obviously we've talked a lot about with council and I think this will really heat up this year now that we have a real project is the range of workforce development opportunities that can occur at the local level as well as at the city's citywide level. Obviously we have a huge challenges in making sure we have the next generation of skilled workers to deliver projects of this scale. And so I certainly see the National Western Project playing a big role in helping make sure that we're starting at the neighborhood level and building opportunities all the way from middle school through high school and beyond as we build the next generation of workers. And then lastly obviously would be the non construction related sort of things that happen. How do we leverage a project like the National Western to make sure that a community like Globeville or Swansea ends up with a grocery store or multiple retail outlets ? Projects of this scale allow for those things to happen. And so I think we have at least the right set of community. You know, Citizens Advisory Committee would be a one of many that we use in order to get that input. But I think we have the building blocks based on what came out of the CAC to make sure that we're continually listening to and understanding what it is the neighborhood wants and how do we translate that into either physical improvements or what I call soft infrastructure improvements over the course of a project like the National Western.
Speaker 0: So my my next and last question is about. Where we are without going into details about properties, but where we are with the overall acquisition and where we are in terms of target of bumping up to how much we've allocated for acquisition of properties.
Speaker 5: I'm so glad you asked that question, Debbie, because I just so happen to have the report right here. Look at that. So every month the Department of Real Estate issues an update on where we are with land acquisition. There are 38 private parcels that we have to acquire within the boundaries of the National Western Center and as of December, which was our last report we issued. Let me get to that page here. We had under some level of control 17 of those 38 parcels. So about 45% of the parcels, give or take. We're under control in some level of control. And by control we mean we've come to terms with them. We've executed a purchase and sale agreement or we've actually closed.
Speaker 0: So that does not. Well, let me just ask, does that include the properties that we've acquired outside of the national western boundaries that would potentially be used for relocation of some of those? No, there's only one.
Speaker 5: Okay. And that's 5300 Franklin. And the reason we acquired that parcel, so that's it's literally just north of our boundary campus boundary. And the reason we acquired that parcel is it's got rail access and we have customers that are in this mix of private companies that we have to relocate that require rail service. So it made sense to us to acquire that parcel just north of site and offer that up as part of our overall compensation of relocating those business and keeping them in Denver.
Speaker 0: Okay. In my light, I do have one last one.
Speaker 5: And I have a response to your last piece. You know, obviously, we're still in active negotiations, so I'm not you know, we issued 200 million in April of last year. But I will tell you right now, we are tracking right where we need to be in terms of of acquiring those parcels and being more or less on budget with the money we've allocated for land acquisition.
Speaker 0: So we part of the the overall focus needs to. It involves the relocation and the Rock Island Railroad has.
Speaker 5: Not the the consolidation.
Speaker 0: Has has that made progress in terms.
Speaker 5: Of it depends on the day. I'm being very honest it depends on the day. We have had as of late some very productive meetings with the Denver Rock Island. So for the general audience, the Denver Rock Island is a short line rail company. It's privately held by the Mars family and it runs through the site. They have two sets of tracks, one that runs through the current National Western Drive and one that runs along the river side of tracks that run along the river. We've been very focused on trying to consolidate the tracks off the river and consolidate them down the center of the site. And I think as of late we've had some very productive meetings. We had a really good meeting with them this last Friday. And I and I feel like we're starting to make some real progress of understanding what their needs are, how we pull this consolidation off and what that ultimately looks like. But this will be a big year for that discussion with the Denver Rock Island, and that includes moving some of their customers. So it's not as simple as just consolidating rail. It includes moving customers and keeping them as an active line. I will tell you, I mean, one good sign is we had two fast lane grants that went through the federal Department of Transportation and in both cases, the Denver Rock Island signed letters of support for those fast lane grants. So we're still awaiting the outcome of the most recent. So, you know, those are, I think, pretty good indicators that at the end of the day, we're going to figure out how to work as partners with them, because rail is such an important part of the history of the site, and it's important that rail continues to be a part of that story.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Carl.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. I'm Kevin. Um, Councilman Flynn, I will go to you. I was just going to cut you off because I want to let everybody know that we had. This is a huge project and it's so big and so important. We have quarterly meetings in the Luti committee. Thank you, Councilwoman, for letting that happen. And we go into deep detail on all of these issues. So if folks are wanting more information on these complex issues like rail consolidation, things like that, we should definitely be at the meeting. I want to zero us in on this particular bill that's in front of us because we have some more tonight. Councilman Flynn, I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I mean, Mr. President, just a quick follow up then, and you can rule it off topic if you want. But Councilwoman Ortega asked about real estate acquisition. Kelley, I'm wondering, are you on target on schedule with those third with those 17 out of 38 acquisitions, is that where you thought you would be a year and a half ago?
Speaker 5: Yeah, we you know, obviously without you know, we didn't start officially till April of this last year. So we had less than a full year to acquire, but our goal was about 50% per year. So we're right on target where we need to be.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa, you're back up.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So one quick clarification. At committee at Ludy, it was five people and tonight it's six. So how many?
Speaker 5: And it's five embedded. And then there's Eric Anderson is the sixth. Eric is part of the design team that's.
Speaker 4: A separate.
Speaker 5: That's a contractor working part of to. But he's going to be spending a lot of time there. But he's not part of the official embedded.
Speaker 4: Five and part of this resolution.
Speaker 5: That is correct.
Speaker 4: And that's a separate half million dollar three year.
Speaker 5: No, you're talking about Eric.
Speaker 4: That's a different that's SSI.
Speaker 5: Yes, that's where we run. Eric Anderson is part of the stage two team and was part of the original team that did our master plan in 2015.
Speaker 4: Okay. To many Eric's now.
Speaker 5: To and Eric. Yes.
Speaker 4: So Eric this Eric is part of six.
Speaker 5: That is.
Speaker 4: Correct. Okay. Okay. And then you in again, I, I stress that I do believe that NWC can and will deliver on what you're saying. Even with this healthy contract and you have operated in the way that you're talking about with these reports back. But the thing that I want to stress is that those are reports only informational and briefings. There is no council action report with regard to those those status updates. And in these on call contracts, is that correct?
Speaker 5: Once you approve the contract? That is correct.
Speaker 4: Okay. And so that's. So that is that is my concern, because we could just as well enter into a CMG contract that would work essentially the same way for the totality of the construction work that will eventually need, need to happen. And that would continue to keep the direct community and the citizens groups that you mentioned and their needs at arm's length and distant from all elected representatives and advocates except for the mayor. And that's that's that is a to me, a legitimate concern, given the sort of needs that have been long string since stressed and that you're very much well aware of and you have a matrix of needs that we continue to not move in advance on in any sort of with any sort of rigor. And so well, we're carving out $14 million for a very healthy contractor in this regard, and we will continue to do so. There's a community there that has long been ignored and still very much has needs. And I would really stress that we start acting on those.
Speaker 1: And our response to that. Thank you, Kelly, for being up here. Let me just say to my council members and folks who are watching a little bit of this process before a bill, before action even gets to city council. We have an executive oversight committee for the National Western Center comprised of city council members, the partners, which is CSU, the National Western Center. Some folks from the city, which is a legal team, Kelly, leads that time. But we also have a neighborhood representative, Drew Dutcher, as well. And those meetings are open to the public. This is a transparent process. And in researching some of these complex projects, this is a best practice. And I think, Councilwoman, can each kind of identified what we should be focusing on here? This is programmatic, not construction. During a construction contract, you do give up a lot of oversight, but programmatic, you bring an expertize in that you don't currently have. And so I will be supporting this. And, Madam Secretary, we are we we have a mover and a Senator Rocha Espinosa.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Flynn, I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore I Herndon. I can each new Ortega assessment i. Black I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I police voting announce results.
Speaker 3: Nine eyes, one nay.
Speaker 1: Nine eyes, one one nay. Resolution 1317 has passed. Can you please. Has been adopted. Can you please pull up 66 Resolution 66 for Councilman New. And 67. Madam Speaker, can we do this in a.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. for on-call Program Management for the National Western Center Campus Development.
Approves an on-call contract with CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. for $14 million and three years for program management services to develop the baseline scope, schedule, budget and phasing for the National Western Center Campus Development at the National Western Center in Council District 9 (201632012-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-13-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 1-3-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01232017_17-0066
|
Speaker 1: Nine eyes, one one nay. Resolution 1317 has passed. Can you please. Has been adopted. Can you please pull up 66 Resolution 66 for Councilman New. And 67. Madam Speaker, can we do this in a.
Speaker 5: Block of time?
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. Can we do this in a block? Madam Secretary?
Speaker 3: No, we can try it.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary says we can try because we have a new system. Our favorite friend, it's called Granicus. And it may not allow us to do this, but maybe it can. We can do it on a on a public or a vote. Let's come up with. No, go ahead.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Perez. I move the resolution 17 0066 and 0067 be adopted.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved in second it. Yeah. Councilman, no comment.
Speaker 5: I just called for a vote because I was I was unable to be briefed on on both of these. And I missed the committee where the discussion was held and just need to abstain from this vote.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Any other comments? Madam Secretary, roll call on 66 and 67.
Speaker 5: New state.
Speaker 3: Ortega.
Speaker 0: I had turned in a little late. I did not also have an opportunity to get briefed. So I'm going to abstain as well. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Sussman i. Black Eye Espinosa, I. Flynn Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashin can each. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: All right, please close the voting and US results.
Speaker 3: Eight eyes, two abstentions. Eight.
Speaker 1: I still have six abstentions. Resolution 66 and 67 have been adopted. All right. That brings us to the conclusion of all our bills caught out. All of the bills for introduction are now ordered published. We're not ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members, please remember, this is a consent or block. Vote for you and you'll need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item. Councilman, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration on final passage on the floor?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass. And a blog for the following items. 17 Dash 006 17 Dash 007 717 Dash zero zero 1317. Dash zero zero 14. 17 Dash zero zero 1516 Dash 11 3916. Dash 1244. 16. Dash 1339. 17. Dash 0008. 17 Dash 0005. And one bill for final consideration. 16. Dash 1341.
Speaker 1: I think you've got a mark, Madam Secretary, that you get them all.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: All right. All right. It's been moved a second. Secretary Raquel.
Speaker 3: Black. I. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. Herndon. I need new. Ortega. Assessment. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close the voting. And as a result, ten eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes.
Speaker 1: The bills. Well, let me see here. The bills have in place. Resolutions and adoption have been on. Final consideration have now passed since there are no public hearings. If there are no objections from members, the Council will not take a recess.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution authorizing and approving the expenditure and payment from the appropriation account designated “liability claims,” the sum of One Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,600,000.00), payable to the Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, Client Trust Account in full payment and satisfaction of all claims in Case No. 11-cv-00102-MSK-KLM, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Settles a claim involving the Denver Police Department. This resolution was approved for filing at the Mayor-Council meeting on 1-17-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01172017_16-1274
|
Speaker 2: At when you all have those costs more the the build out. And I know the building has capacity to maybe grow in phases. So as you know what those costs are, if you wouldn't mind sharing them, that would be much, I'm sure. Absolutely. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, counsel. Madam Secretary, please pull up 1274. You beat me to it. Thank you. You have a comment for Council 1274. Go ahead, Councilwoman.
Speaker 2: If I have this. Particular location correctly. We received a lot of communication from people regarding this vacation. For an alley in the lower downtown area, which is the southeast corner of Oui Water in 15th Street. And I, I don't know if this came to committee says it was filed on consent, but this raised a concern with the folks in lower downtown about closing off an alley access that would create kind of a dead end for the concern was especially expressed for women who, you know, enter and exit their buildings and would have to access it off the alley. And so, I don't know. Councilwoman Brooks, this is your district?
Speaker 1: Yes, this is my district. This is the find district nine. You know, at this particular I think you're getting it confused. There won't be any cutting off from the right of way. This was done for the development in this district, but it will not be taking any right away from the public. We had a quick conversation over this last last week.
Speaker 2: Okay. So their access is not being restricted and none of the alley is being blocked. They'll have full through access of the alley.
Speaker 1: Yes, I believe they will. And in do we have a representative Chris. Mr. Sheers, come on up here the great architect in Denver.
Speaker 7: I'm Chris. Here's 1550 when you've.
Speaker 1: So can you tell us about. Yeah. Tell us about the proposal in front of us. This is an Ali vacation here. Will it be cut off? They're asking will their access be cut off to the river here?
Speaker 7: No, no, no, no. This just this is dealing with a sidewalk area. And it has to do with a setback for the building. This proposed by Randy Nickels at the intersection of 15th and Maulana. I think that council woman I'll tell you the the issue that she brought up is a separate project and your concerns are legitimate for that.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. I was confusing this with that other project and thank.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way near 1750 15th Street, with reservations.
Vacates a portion of the public right-of-way on the southeasterly corner of Wewatta Street at 15th Street, with reservations, at 1750 15th Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-13-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01172017_16-1331
|
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. I was confusing this with that other project and thank.
Speaker 7: You for saying it's easy to get those confused. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. We're going to bring up 1331. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Councilwoman. Last one.
Speaker 2: Yes. This is for the Avondale Shopping Center property. And I just want to know that when we relinquish certain easements, if properties that exist to the east of the shopping center, if their access will be affected in any way. And I don't know if there's anybody here that can speak to that.
Speaker 1: Anybody here.
Speaker 2: So that's your district.
Speaker 1: Lisa? Lisa Lumley, back up here.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Lisa.
Speaker 1: Three out of four of the bills. You're on fire tonight.
Speaker 2: So there are a number of businesses on the east side of that shopping center. Right. That basically access off a 14. Mm hmm. And I want to know if the. Relinquishing the the easements in any way, shape or form affects their ability to access their properties.
Speaker 6: I will check on this for you. This is not one of our bills. So but I am familiar with the center because of acquiring the parcel and I am part of the board for Avondale there representing the library. We do have a cross access agreement, though, with the other owner, so it should not impact it. But let me follow up and see exactly where this easement is an awful lot with you in the morning then.
Speaker 2: I'd appreciate it. Thank you. That concludes my requests.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Lisa. All right. This concludes the items that have been called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. We're now ready for the block votes on the resolution, on the bills for final consideration and councilmembers. Please remember that this is this is a consent or block vote and we need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call at each item for a separate vote to form Ortega. Will you please put the resolutions for adoption in the bills on final consideration for final passage and do place on the floor?
Speaker 2: Will do I move that the following be moved in a block vote. Council Bill 17 000 for I'm sorry. Resolution. Resolution 16. 1294. 1295. 1318 0003 of 1217 1207 of 2016 1209. 13. Ten. And then. Council Bill 1193 series of 2016 and 1199 also of 2016.
Speaker 1: You u Ms. 1342 1274. Those other two were not on there.
Speaker 2: Okay. I thought those were bills for those are final. Sorry. Okay. So let me add 2016 excuse me, council bill 1274 and 1331 of 2016 as well, all in a bloc vote.
Speaker 1: Okay. And want to make sure, Madam Secretary, she got 1342 series of 12 and 16.
Speaker 2: I don't I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: And 1310. We got that one right.
Speaker 3: Okay. Yes.
Speaker 4: And not the other two.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Good to go.
Speaker 4: I think.
Speaker 1: So. Okay. We're good to go. Take out those other two. Scratch. For the record, it has been moved the second it. Mr. Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 4: Black Eye Clerk Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Gillmor I Cashman Canete Lopez knew Ortega I assessment i. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. 12 I's to advise. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing of Council Bill 90 1193 changing the zoning classification of 2099 and 2101 31st Street and require a public hearing for Council Bill 1199 Changing the zoning classification for 4211 Inca
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance relinquishing an easement established by the New Avondale Subdivision Plat located near West Colfax Avenue and Federal Boulevard.
Relinquishes certain easements established on the New Avondale Subdivision Plat recorded in 1963 located at West Colfax Avenue and Federal Boulevard in Council District 3. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-30-17. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-27-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01172017_16-1193
|
Speaker 1: On the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from any profane or obscene speech and direct your comments to City Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1193 on the floor.
Speaker 2: To do so? Mr. President, I move that council bill 1193 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved. And second it the public hearing for Council Bill 1193 is now open. May we have the staff report? And Lisa Hart from Committee Planning and development.
Speaker 8: All right. Good evening, members of council. My name is only Annalise Hook. I am a senior city planner. Excuse me. I'm here to present the application at 2101 and 2099 31st Street. The application is to rezone the property from ibe you oh two to I am X8. Moving on to Slide two. The subject property is located within Council District nine and more specifically, the Globeville neighborhood. On Slide three, you can see that the subject property is located within the global neighborhood. The specific subject property is located at 31st Street and Rings B Street, which is the nearest intersection. It is the former rodeo site and it is currently located across from the RTD maintenance facility. Familiar with that area and once again located in the Globeville neighborhood. Moving along to slide number five, the request itself is to rezone the property, which is somewhat over four acres, to redevelop the site. As such, the rezoning request is to rezone from IP use overlay to to IMX eight. The request is for an industrial context mixed use zone district with a maximum building height of eight storeys. The existing zoning context in the area is where the rail tracks are to the north. That is ibibio to as well with the surrounding zoning of I a and that industrial context use overlay to I being Yalta. And then to the Northeast we have CMCs 12, but the use overlay one. The existing context for the land use is industrial at this time, with surrounding land uses of industrial transportation, community utility as well as surface parking lot. As you can see in the top right corner, a photo of the site from Google Street View showing that it was the former ready ice site. And on the bottom right side of the page, you can see a photo of the RTD bus maintenance facility. The process that has gone through the rezoning has been typical in nature with the rezoning going to planning board November 16th of this past year, with Planning Board making a recommendation of approval, the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reviewed this application in December of last year, as well as city council here tonight. The public outreach provided notice to all the listed renos. A notification of signs have been listed on the property property accordingly. As such, the review criteria is consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. Just find circumstances and consistency with the neighborhood context, districts purpose and intent. Moving along to Slide 12 for review the applicable plans for the subject site. Starting with Comp Plan 2000, which provides a variety of applicable strategies related to environmental sustainability land use, which really encourages quality infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and offers opportunities for increased density, more amenities and broadens a variety of compatible uses. We also see encouragement for a variety of mixed use transit oriented developments, as well as continuing to promote mixed use development, which enables people to live, work near retail services and rail provided. Blueprint. Denver has the land use concept of this area as industrial as well as area of change with industrial having more opportunities for diverse employment areas and areas of change. Look areas within the city that we want to channel our growth where it is beneficial to improve access to jobs, housing and services. Additionally Blueprint Denver provides street classification as such 31st Street as well as Perkins and Rings b r excuse me, the schools where Perkins is actually a residential collector. However, as you can see, that's much further along. Specifically, we have a small area plan of the Globeville neighborhood plan, which was adopted in 2014, and that provides some specific land use concepts located within the industrial edge. Specifically, it's recommended as industrial mixed use. Some of those recommendations from the Globeville Neighborhood Plan are to improve compatibility between the industrial and residential uses of the area and to utilize industrial mixed use zone district as a buffer where we can improve the transition for the industrial mixed use area . Additional strategies recommend revitalization through mixed use development with retaining light industrial uses that are compatible to the residential uses in the area, as well as transitioning to the industrial mixed use area on 31st Avenue and Rings B Court, which is a specific location of the site. Moving on to Slide 18, we have our most recently adopted plan, which is a 38 than Blake Hyde Amendments plan, which is an amendment of all the different plans in this area, but only specifically pertaining to building heights. As such, the plan recommends a base maximum building height of eight storeys on the subject site. As such, the request is consistent with the plans. Moving along. CPD finds that there is consistency with the adopted plans of Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, the Globeville Neighborhood Plan and the 38 the Blake Station Area Amendments Plan. We also find the uniformity of district regulations being applied consistently across the city that this application furthers the public health, safety and welfare through the adoption and furthering of the area and citywide plans. We find that the justifying circumstances in this area are the recently opened 38, the Blake Station area plan, as well as a transition to more residential and mixed uses in this area. We also find consistency with the neighborhood zone, context, district purpose and intent as the industrial context is where we see some of this irregular street grid building setback and a wider variety of uses to support employment as well as housing. As such, CPD recommends approval based on the findings. All of the review criteria have been met.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Annalise. All right. We have no speakers for this specific item, so we'll go straight into questions by members of council. Are there any questions? Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a little note. You've spelled Globeville. Globeville.
Speaker 8: In each of your things. Let me. Before we put it officially, you might wanna.
Speaker 6: Cause I don't know if we have Globeville. We do have Globeville.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Dr. Sussman? Yes. Dr. Sussman. Here at work. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: I have a couple of questions. Is the applicant here that's requesting the zone change?
Speaker 8: So if you maybe noticed, I was looking over my shoulder as they weren't expecting for the public hearing to start quite as soon as I've been messaging them and was hoping that they would walk in in the door if I saw me.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you a couple of questions, then, in a least. So you all know that we did a six month process that looked at any of our rail corridors where we are. Potentially seeing development happening. And the focus was particularly along corridors that carry hazardous materials. And so my first question for you and Elise is. To ask whether or not all of the training with the planning staff has occurred. Evelyn I'm forgetting her last name. Baker. Say that again. Evelyn Baker. Yes. Evelyn was going to be doing the training with the planning managers and the staff and and number one, wanting to ask , has that transpired?
Speaker 8: If it has, it's possible. However, I have not personally attended that training.
Speaker 2: Okay. I've been asking. So one of the recommendations that came out of this report, and I want to request that we have an update of the report to the committee so that you all are privy to the details of what came out of that effort. But there is supposed to be a checkbox now on the application form for anybody that's requesting a zoning or that is moving to do design review, asking if their project is within a close proximity to rail. And then it allows us to do a better job in looking at some of the life safety issues related to ensuring that, you know, the development is thinking about or the developer thinking about and looking at some of those issues. So, for example, I'm going to pick on Mr. Zeppelin, who's in the audience. They have a development that has roll up windows that overlook the railroad tracks. And as we look forward, is that something we want to continue to do if we have an incident that happens on the tracks, that that poses a serious risk and threat to the people either living or working in a development that may have roll up windows that overlook some of these very train cars that potentially could be a harm. You know, as a city, we are required to have a hazardous mitigation plan. And if any of you have attended the LPC meetings, as a matter of fact, there was one going on this evening. This is one of the things they're working towards is creating the the the details in the basis for a hazard mitigation plan. This is required by the Federal Office of Homeland Security. And, you know, the work that we did for this six months that was spearheaded by Chief Tade was to help us look at how do we now address some of these life safety issues. And I'm wanting to ask a second question, and that is, did this issue even come up as part of this particular application looking at proximity to rail? And and was there even a discussion about that?
Speaker 8: This rezoning application did go through the standard course of notification. So adjoining property owners as well as all the required agencies were referred. There was not any specific comments received throughout the application and in relation to the proximity of the rail corridor.
Speaker 2: And what that says to me is we we have had a request in to Evelyn Baker for almost two weeks now asking if the check off box form has been changed or the form that now has the check off box so that this issue can begin to be looked at. And I've not had a response yet, but so that's why I'm asking these questions, because there were some very thoughtful recommendations that came out of the plan, out of the plan, out of the study session that had a report that that spoke to some of these issues. And so to learn that, number one, it's not clear that everybody's been trained, which was what I was told where we were at. And number two, that we're not even having that conversation is is really kind of concerning because it says to me as a city, we're not serious about addressing life safety issues as it pertains to development. This isn't to say, no, you can't do a development. That is not what our effort was all about. It was to look at how do we address human life and property and safety access. Egress, you know, to the tracks was a whole separate part of our conversation. But I'm raising this because I think it's important for my colleagues to know what came out of that effort and to learn that I'm not sure we're even utilizing any of that work that we spent six months doing. So thank you for answering my questions.
Speaker 8: And I'll follow up with our agency. I will just note that this application was submitted in July of last year, so I don't know when those changes took effect, but it's important to maybe note when that application came in, it will also know.
Speaker 2: It was within that timeframe.
Speaker 8: That the applicant has arrived, if any questions would like to be directed to them.
Speaker 2: If you don't mind. Mr.. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Just ask the applicant if this topic of proximity to rail ever came up as part of this development.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So my name is Cale Zeppelin from Zeppelin Development. I reside at the same site which is 34, 57 rings record. The site is 28 acres and it follows the tracks, as you pointed out. And absolutely, it's constantly coming up. The what created this possibility was really the expansion of the North Line. So there's actually a 60 foot buffer, which includes the commuter line, which is electrified between the tracks and and the building parcel. So that effectively serves as a buffer. And the specific project that we're talking about building on that site includes tax credit financing. So there's actually a higher level of scrutiny. It's a deed restricted, affordable called Logitech program that looks at the tracks. And we've been able to kind of address the issues that came up so that that is a consideration for HUD and a requirement. And and we've been able to kind of get through that. It doesn't directly relate to the zoning or it has been an issue with the zoning. But to go forward with this specific project, we have had to address the proximity to the tracks and confirm that it's safe.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I appreciate that detail and the fact that that was, in fact, part of the conversation. Thank you, Miss.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Any other questions for this public hearing for council? Bill 1193 is now closed. Any comments by members of council? All right. I see none. And it has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 4: Sorry. One moment. Black Eye Clark by Espinosa I. Flynn. I. Gilmore, i. Herndon. I. Cashman. Kennedy. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Sussman. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: Close voting as a result.
Speaker 4: We just need a few more to vote.
Speaker 1: We got some folks hanging fire here. Oh, shoot.
Speaker 4: All right. Right.
Speaker 1: Someone accidentally voted nay.
Speaker 4: On 13.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2099 and 2101 31st Street.
Rezones property located at 2099 and 2101 31st Street from I-B, UO-2 to I-MX-8 (from industrial to industrial mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-6-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01092017_16-1274
|
Speaker 1: Okay. Do a quick recap on the resolutions. I have no bill called out on bills for introduction. I have. Councilman Espinosa has called out Council Bill 1274 just for comment. And under bills for final consideration, Councilwoman, each has called out Bill 919 for a technical amendment. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Madam Secretary, can you please pull up council bill 1274? Great, Councilman. Go ahead and make your comment.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. I just. When I was looking at this. One of the things that concerns me is this is effectively a rezoning without consideration by planning board nor public notification and comment. So, well, I'm not going to interfere with the process because it is what it is. I have asked to meet with the developer to ascertain how they intend to address the zoning requirements with proposed future development and the public realm prior to next week's final consideration. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Okay. Angela Cassius, can you can you come up here? I just I just want to ask a quick question. This. This counts. Oh, this is so great. I'm telling you, I love it every time it comes up. So this is actually a sidewalk vacation, correct?
Speaker 2: It's a right of way vacation. So there is an easement to keep the sidewalk in tact.
Speaker 1: Okay. So so will there be any disruption to the sidewalk at all?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Okay. And tell me about the public process, because this they go out to all neighborhood organizations. Correct.
Speaker 2: So there is a public process associated with all vacations. And so we notify the public in a couple of different ways. There's actual sign posted in the location with a contact information for the city so that if people have have questions or concerns, they can email the city. We also contact all of the, I guess, touching neighborhood organizations as part of the process in addition to all of the utility companies.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. And I'm just making sure and I know this is right in this area, there is a design review committee in this LaDonna area. So these folks will have to go before a design review board as well, right?
Speaker 2: I believe so, yes.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Okay? Yeah. My best to speak. Oh, you're in there. Councilman Espinosa is in the. In the queue here.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So just so it's clear why based on the comments there. I that's what I meant by sort of it's sort of run of the mill in this sort of kind of request that is being made. If the reason why, I just want the public to sort of know the reason why I say it's sort of an effective reasoning is if you're familiar with the building adjacent to this property that houses the Q Hills restaurant, that building is subject to a setback or a step back requirement. So if that building is five storey, well, probably seven storeys or eight storeys along the street. And then at that point, it's supposed to step back 25 feet. And then the just the roof, the remaining storeys go up. And that's the requirement of zoning when you effectively claim through vacation the sidewalk area and move your property line from the to the alignment with the Ku Hill's building out to the curb line, that then effectively moves the bulk closer to the all the historic property line. And so that wouldn't be this sort of building in that area would not be allowed in the parcel as in the zone lot as defined today. But when you move in, you make the property bigger, you're you're set back requirement is based on the property line . Therefore you're now able to step back. I mean, you're able to capture your step back requirement over that sidewalk that you're not using. And so it will result in bottom line is it will result in a different massing that could be built right on that corner after the zone, meaning after the vacation of the of the sidewalk and the subsequent easement, then you could do today as a use by right. And so the good thing is, is yeah, it is subject to design review. So you get a little more scrutiny on what the finished product is than you would in a lot of other parts of the city. The majority of the city. But it is it is it is one of those things that it wouldn't be clear when you're talking about simply a ride away vacation, you don't know how that's going to actually subsequently influence the mass of a building that goes next to it.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way near 1750 15th Street, with reservations.
Vacates a portion of the public right-of-way on the southeasterly corner of Wewatta Street at 15th Street, with reservations, at 1750 15th Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-13-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01092017_16-0919
|
Speaker 4: The majority of the city. But it is it is it is one of those things that it wouldn't be clear when you're talking about simply a ride away vacation, you don't know how that's going to actually subsequently influence the mass of a building that goes next to it.
Speaker 1: Things are right next. Bill, call it out. Can you please, Madam Secretary, bring up Council Bill 919 for amendment. Councilwoman Canete. You've called it out. Would you like to make a comment before?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be offering a technical amendment to Council Bill 918, which pertains to financial disclosure. The technical change corrects an error pertaining to the effective date of the new reporting requirements. As I described last week, I intended the semiannual gift reporting requirements to begin in July of 2017, which will be the first reporting gift period to which the new reporting rules apply. The amendment reflects the semiannual nature of the proposed financial disclosure statements.
Speaker 1: Great. Councilman Flynn, will you put the bill on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bills 16 919 as amended on January 3rd, 2017, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved needed a second or great council can each. Your motion to omit.
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 919 be amended in the following particulars on page two line 38 strike quote beginning in 2018, end quote. And replace with quote, beginning July 31st, 2017. Period, end quote.
Speaker 1: Okay. That is very technical and has been moved and waiting on a second. Any more comments?
Speaker 2: Yeah, just my apologies. We described it correctly last week and did my best to reread the bill, but I missed this. This change was not made in the in the amendment as in the bill as intended and this particular spot. And so we are just cleaning it up. Apologies to my colleagues.
Speaker 1: All right. Council Bill 919, as amended on the floor. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Can each I.
Speaker 7: Lopez.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 7: New.
Speaker 2: SUSSMAN My.
Speaker 7: Black eye. CLARK All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 3: FLYNN Hi.
Speaker 7: Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Close voting announced results. 12 Eyes 12 Eyes Council Bill 919 has been amended or we have voted on amend it now. Councilman Flynn, we need the motion to pass as amended.
Speaker 3: And thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 2016 does 919 as amended be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. Has been moved and second comes of of members of council no comments Madam Secretary roll call.
Speaker 2: Can each I.
Speaker 7: Lopez. New assessment i black. Clark. Espinosa. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon.
Speaker 3: Cashman, i.
Speaker 7: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: To advise.
Speaker 1: All right. To advise. Council Bill 919 passes as amended. This concludes the items that need to be called out. All other bills for introduction are now ordered publish. We're now ready for the block votes on the Bills on resolution bill for final consideration. Council Members Please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you'll need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Flynn, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. Yes, Mr. President. I move that the resolutions be adopted and the bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 2016 1332 1276 1321 1322 1328 1333 1335. Series four 2017 A Number ten Series of 2016 1273 1290 1336 1240 1329 Series of 2016 1117, 12, 65, 13, 15, 13, 16 and 1320.
Speaker 1: Just making sure you got him on the you know.
Speaker 3: I believe I did.
Speaker 1: Yes. A good way to congratulate you, sir. All right. Thank you. It has been moved. We need a second here. Madam Secretary, Oracle.
Speaker 2: Black. I.
Speaker 7: Clark. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Hi. Carnage. Lopez.
Speaker 2: I knew.
Speaker 7: Susman. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please close the voting. And as a result.
Speaker 7: 12 eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 1071 concerning property taxes dedicated for the purpose of purchasing services for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and to require a public hearing on Council Bill 1125 Change Zoning
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED, a bill for an ordinance amending Article V of Chapter 2 of the Revised Municipal Code pertaining to financial disclosure.
Revises the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding financial disclosure including eliminating the requirement that candidates for municipal office make financial disclosures, modifying the definition of “gift”, “immediate family” and “officer”, modifying the date for submitting the annual financial disclosure statement for city officers, requiring semi-annual gift disclosure reports by officers and annual gift disclosure reports by employees, modifying reportable gifts and increasing the reporting threshold from $25 to $50; making the financial and gift reports of officers publicly available online and the gift reports of employees publicly available on request, and modifying the remedies for violations of the ordinance. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-29-16. Amended 1-3-17 to remove the minimum $50 threshold for reporting gifts in the covered categories, resulting in the reporting of all gifts received in the designat
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01092017_16-1071
|
Speaker 1: State your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which would result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual personal attacks. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 1071 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1071 series of 2016 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing of Council Bill 1071 is open. May we have the staff report? Jay, Marine for Human Services. Come on down. Oh, Rafael Espinosa, come on down as well.
Speaker 9: Good evening. I'm Jay Marine. I'm the chief of staff for the Department of Human Services. Presenting an overview of the Council Bill 1071, which is in front of you tonight, is short background a voter initiated, voter initiated ordinance from 2003, established full mill dedicated to the community center board for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Denver City Auditor just over a year ago audited and released his report of findings of the spending of the mill levy funds that have passed through the Department of Human Services and since the origins of the mill levy have been contracted to the state designated community center board Rocky Mountain Human Services, who's also doing business as Denver options in the auditor's report. The auditor made a series of recommendations which we try and address through the ordinance in front of you tonight. The recommendations the auditor made included determining whether to codify Initiative 100 in the city ordinance. Clearly, that's what we're trying to do today. Determine what constitutes questionable spending of mill levy funds. Limit administrative costs to 15%. Determine how best to address residency requirements and to monitor the contract on a quarterly basis. This ordinance that we're requesting today did come before committee on December 14th and is required to be prior to its passage needs to be preceded by the public hearing, which is scheduled this evening. The elements of the proposed ordinance include directing that the proceeds from the mill levy be deposited in the Human Services Special Revenue Fund, as it has been by practice, and it defines permitted use of the proceeds to include to contract for services and supports through the Community Center Board, to contract for services and supports through any other entity that provides such services. Authorizes the transfer of funds to the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and financing for purposes of receiving matching federal funds to provide Medicaid approved waiver services. And sets an administrative expenses limit to less than 15%. The residency requirements have been aligned in the ordinance to that which appears in state rules and requirements. And the ordinance includes a carve out of mill levy revenues not to exceed 75/100 of a percent of the total collections for the Department of Human Services to administer and enforce . That's 70/500 of a percent equates to about $114,000 annually under the current mill levy revenues of roughly $14.5 million. And with that, I open it up. Two questions I've been joined this evening by Sheri PINSKY, the CEO of Rocky Mountain Human Services, to field questions as well.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm going to call up. Let's see here. Yes. I'm going to call up the first. You can have a seat, James. I'm going to call up the first five speakers and you can just come up to the front and patent. Don Caldwell. Rob Hernandez. Marine Welch. Okay. All right. And Penn, first you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 2: Thanks. Hi. My name is Ann Peyton. I live in Denver in Councilman News District. I want to applaud the council for taking this issue so seriously and very much appreciate the questions you've been asking. I watched the video of your December 14th meeting and also want to seek clarification on the admin expenses. But I see this is a great opportunity to make things right for the people that desperately need this support. And I support a yes vote on this bill. I'm the parent of a 33 year old man with autism who lives in his own home with 24/7 support through the deed comprehensive waiver. He also lives in councilman whose district. My son has received services through Rocky Mountain since 2002 in various capacities, but now they just provide case management. Because I created my own past two and a half years ago to provide residential community and supported employment services to my son under a unique model that better meets his needs. I recently joined the Rocky Mountain Human Services Mill Levy Committee because as a taxpayer and supporter of this mill levy, I was horrified with the auditor's findings and want to help Rocky Mount and figure out better ways of supporting families with IED with this money. As a parent, I am very familiar with the support needs of families, but I also had knowledge as a service provider. There are many opportunities for ways to get this mill levy money into the hands of families. And I'm anxious and excited to see this happen. For instance, I had to pay out of pocket for Denver Parks and Rec summer camp for my son because the DPS school summer program didn't meet his needs. He wanted a fully inclusive experience, and he found that here at the Parks and Rec, this is a great example of how the mill levy funding can be used. My my son still has friends to this day, both peers and counselors that he often sees in the community. Today, in reviewing the six month mill library report January to June 2016, a concern for me is the amount of mill levy money that was spent on case management, about 56% across all waivers. This is based on actual numbers as denoted through the legend and not the pie chart. This 56% is over and above the case management amount. They already bill medicaid for. I appreciate that some of this goes to interagency team meetings and other valuable needs. However, in my opinion, mill levy dollars should be going to programing, not supplanting billable operating expenses to the tune of an additional 56%. In addition, I question whether some of this could be attributed to Adnan, but that is for the accountants to do to decide. Personally, for me, I wish I had access to dollars over and above what services I can build Medicaid for. I can barely make my payroll at $15 an hour and I do not pay myself anything.
Speaker 5: This better.
Speaker 1: Miss Penn, your time is up.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's what I was going to say for your interest in diligence on top of all this. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Don Colwell.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Don Caldwell. I have a I'm sorry, I'm in Highlands Ranch, Douglas County. I have a 16 year old son who is on the way over and receives case management services through Rocky Mountain Human Services. I am a recently authorized pastor for my son and in my previous life I was a consultant that automated home health agencies. I came today to thank the Council for their leadership on this bill. I hope you will approve the bill. They're clear, and I appreciate your clear understanding of conflict free case management issues and understanding that the community desires to quickly open up the levy funds for competitive bidding. Opening the funds to all existing providers would level the playing field among all the agencies and providers and allow individuals and families the ability to self-determine the best use of funds to meet their needed services and supports. I respect Rocky Mountain Service, Human Services and all that they do. But I still have concerns that some of the issues that arose have not been resolved. And some of the issues with their Malawi sole discretion creates conflict because Rocky Mountain has sole use of those funds. At the December meeting, there was discussion that they would be withholding several million dollars this year from individuals that could use those services. That was without public comment or hearing or any kind of vote. They have a disproportionate amount of Malawi funds for case management. I myself have I have personally experienced two instances where case managers insisted on excessive and invasive case management meetings that were beyond Medicaid requirements. I am concerned that there's no substantive data in the middle of your reporting that explains how the funds are being used, in particular when looking at the residential program. It appears that Rocky Mountain is not a profitable passive home health agency in this program. They're able to bill 12% of all billable contractor units. They are able to build 60 hours of case management per customer. The existing pastors and home health agencies in the out in the market who do not have access to mill levy funds , are able to provide all of these services and meet Medicaid requirements while also being profitable. Rocky Mountain, on the other hand, appears to be covering significant losses, with 800,000 of m.y funds almost an additional $9,000 per each of the 92 customers being served. So my hope is that if you will, open up the military funds to competitive bidding, that it will create a more robust marketplace of choices. The reason I bring it up, I apologize, is that the December 14th meeting, Department of Human Services said that while it is in the bill, they're not looking to actually activate that.
Speaker 4: Mascolo Your tie, sir.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. Rob Hernandez.
Speaker 4: Do you want to get? Good evening, council and members of council. My name is Rob Hernandez and in here I have with me tonight is Danny and Jo. And they received their case management services through Rocky Mountain Human Services. I want to touch a little bit on conflict case management. That's the federal rule that came out in in March 17th of 2014 that says that community center boards have to separate case management services from direct services. In other words, right now, Rocky Mount Human Services does both. They do case management services and they do residential, which is what they are, which is the program that Danny and Joe are under. So the beauty of this ordinance that that is before council tonight is that it's going to allow for robust competition. In other words, the types of services that aren't available under the state plan, which is the Medicaid waiver, which is approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This would cover those types of things, whether it's Joe needing let's say he wants to do some something, he wants to learn how to swim or Joe Danny needs a wheelchair ramp or some type of special services that aren't covered. When I campaigned for this in 2003 and went door to door and Joe carried signs, you know, in favor of it. That was the intent that they would cover those types of services that were not covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and that would complement those types of things. So I want to just thank Council for their leadership, because this fits right into what the state has said. They have said that is there that there may be more than one CCP after conflict case management occurs. And what they have said is that it is up to the local governments to determine the flow of these mill levy moneys. So I want to thank Council for taking the time to really consider this, because this is groundbreaking throughout the state. Other other local governments throughout the state will look to Denver to say, Oh, gee, Denver did it this way. Maybe, perhaps this is what we need to do with our mill levy money with our CCP. So thank you for your leadership. And any questions? I'm done.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And thank you, Joe and Danny.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Well, Danny, you didn't sign up. Well, I have a minute left. Danny just wants to say hello.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 4: This is Danny. He can't. He can't reach it. Just say hello, Danny. Uh Premiere. Oh, that's okay. That's okay. We should have known if I should have not. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Council members. I should've known that was okay.
Speaker 1: It's okay.
Speaker 4: This is why he's in a wheelchair.
Speaker 1: But is he okay?
Speaker 4: Yeah. What he's told you is that his mom died. Okay. So every time he relives that trauma, even though it was three years ago. Yes. This is one of the special needs that this this. Okay, Joe, I think our time is up.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Maureen Welch.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Maureen Welch, and I have a son who is nine years old. His name is James and he receives services at Rocky Mountain Human Services for his case management. And he has Down syndrome. I wholeheartedly support Bill 1071 and urge you to vote yes. I supported Initiative 100 back in 2003 before my son was even born. When I cast my vote, my understanding was, was that the property taxes would be used to benefit individuals directly who had disabilities, but instead it seems like it's ended up funding the costs of running a large agency. I was incredibly impressed and happy to watch the December 14th video from the Safe Committee. I applaud and thank the Council for its clear understanding of the urgent need to codify this initiative by passing this initiative. Denver will be at the forefront of leadership in Colorado, and you will be the shining star for other cities and counties to look to on how to best use their local mill levy moneys. This ordinance addresses the need to reduce conflict while also increasing choice and accountability. Councilwoman CORNISH did an excellent point about wanting to have crystal clarity on what administrative overhead is, and I urge that there is some opportunity for public to have input during that process as well. It was so refreshing to hear you remind the committee councilwoman that the city council is the governing body for defining administrative costs and monitoring it, not a contractor. And Councilman Flynn excuse me, Councilman Flynn requested that we speak in this hearing to the effect of considering proposals beyond Rocky Mountain Human Services. Historically, the only contractor for these services. I agree with more choice. There's a need for more choice in this community. A robust menu of choice will reduce conflict of interest and is much more person centered. A monopoly is not. My pan ultimate goal is to have individuals be able to apply directly for these funds, cutting out the 15% overhead from a middleman agency. This would allow more money to flow directly to the individual maximizing the benefit of these taxpayers monies. Here are just a few examples that I could think of that could be funded directly. A second creator with cerebral palsy wants to attend Park and Rec Day camp with his friends from school. He just needs help paying for the camp fee and having a support person to attend with him. To a young lady with Down's Syndrome needs private swim lessons at a pool in her neighborhood. Number three, an older adult loves to ride horses and would love to do therapeutic horseback riding. But this is not allowed under Medicaid funding. And for a musician who wants to attend open mic nights located inconveniently for public transportation. So small funding for a taxi or Uber ride would allow them to participate.
Speaker 1: Swoosh.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. I support this bill.
Speaker 1: Yep. Thank you. And this concludes our speakers now. Questions by members of council. Councilman. New?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. My question was. Share your perspective, Sheriff, to come, please.
Speaker 2: My name is Sheri PINSKY. I'm the executive director of Rocky Mountain Human Services.
Speaker 5: First, I'd just like to thank Don Mars and Tim O'Brien and to doing the audit and doing the study. And also thank Sheri for pitching in to get things organized. The Rocky Mountain. I'm really proud of what you're doing and you're on the right track and Jay helping you along the way there. So I think we're on the right track. Can you talk a little bit about the provision of services and about services provider Rocky Mountain versus other providers?
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Councilman, for the question. So leading up to this point, before the auditor's report. You know, we provide a variety of services at Rocky Mountain Human Services. The broadest scope of services that we provide is, in our case, management. We, you know, we are primarily responsible for individuals who live in Denver looking at their case management needs. So that's something that we've carried carried through here. Hearing, I think the discussions that we had in in your committee earlier this year, we heard this question around the middle of your funds being used for other providers, and we immediately started planning for ways to do this. We agree we agree that the military funds should be used to support other providers that do similar work that we do. Case management is a little unique because we are the only case management provider, at least right now, in Denver. You know, that may change down the road, but we have plans right now. We have already been funding services to other providers. We are in a good position really to assess what those overall needs are for Denver and to figure out along with the city where to prioritize those funds and how to to support other providers. So as an example, we have increased our are our respite services who are now serving. We're we're adding services to 400 families and respite and a variety of providers deliver those services. We're supporting residential providers. Any any residential provider that needs some help with some furnishings or some extra support. They have access to funds. We we do fund rec center passes now so that individuals can can receive rec center passes. So we have new new programs that we're developing all the time in the primary goal. One of the primary goals is to be sure that all providers have access to these funds.
Speaker 5: Right? And the transparency in communication with the community is much better, is it?
Speaker 2: So yes, Councilman Nu, thank you for that question. We have engaged in and put a lot of energy into our stakeholder process and we have had probably individual conversations with over 100 individuals, either in group meetings or one on one. We've done surveys. We've done a variety of ways to be sure that we hear the needs that families have. We are doing community forums every every quarter. I believe that we have a pretty good communication back and forth. I'm sure there's always room for improvement, but I'm really proud of the work that we've done, just to be sure we're listening. We really wanted to listen this year and understand what what individuals wanted.
Speaker 5: That's so important. I'm glad that you're improving. That's wonderful. Thank you very much. I just want to I'll be supporting this audit tonight and encourage my colleagues to also support it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman new councilman Flynn. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Rob, can I ask you a question? Could you detail a little bit more force the issue regarding the separation of case management from service provision and how that looks?
Speaker 4: Yes. Councilman Rob Hernandez, speaking for the record company Case Management was is a is a federal rule that came out in March 17th of 2014. And it is it applies to every single state in the union. Colorado is probably right now one of the few states that is not in compliance. And there are plans that the state is trying to do to bring us in compliance with basically what it says is that all KBS within the state of Colorado have to separate their case management from their direct services. So just think case management over here. All other services to this population over here, they cannot do both because that's where the conflict occurs, because right now everything is within one local CCP. So the trouble is, is that that's where the conflict comes in. You have a case management, a case manager that has the potential to steer services towards their particular their particular entity. And in the case of Rocky Mountain Human Services, I don't have an example where that's happened recently, but in the past there's have been other cases that have actually done that. So what this says is that there will be once it's implemented, there will be case management agencies. And so rackmount human services, like any other CCP in the state of Colorado, can choose to either be a large case management agency or they can choose to be a large direct service agency. My observation would probably be that because the money's in direct services, there's not a whole lot of money in case management. Matter of fact, it only amounts to about 38. O8 Is that right? Cherry About 3808 for each individual. So there's not a whole lot of money in case management, but there are organizations that want to come into Colorado and provide those services. And not only that, but they want to be able to pay their people well enough and and provide continuity for services for this population.
Speaker 3: But let me ask you, are you suggesting that one single agency cannot do both? When you talk about separating case management from service provision, can the same agency do that?
Speaker 4: Councilman Flynn? Rob Hernandez You're exactly correct, is that they cannot do both. The rule is very explicit that they cannot do both. And I'll give you an example. In the state of Ohio. State of Ohio, at that particular point in time, John Boehner was speaker of the House of U.S. Representatives. He signed off on a letter asking for an extension from case managers from CMS, the Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services. They were told that they needed to comply and that they told that they were needed to comply. They got no answer. And six months later, they were told that you have four days to comply, to come into compliance with conflict case management. And imagine in the state of Ohio, there are 84 community centered boards and within four days they all had to come into compliance. And we don't want to see that happen in Colorado, but that's why this is really a very far thinking. This ordinance shows leadership. And I want to thank counsel for introducing this.
Speaker 3: And thank you and God bless you for what you're doing. Senator, thank you. J Could I ask you to explain to us why the city does not plan to take advantage of the ability to seek other providers for certain service just for competitive reasons? Why we would not do that immediately under this new this codification.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Jay, Marine Department of Human Services. When the department drafted or worked with the city attorney's office to draft the ordinance, we had built into the ordinance the ability to contract with someone other than the community center board. Really with our eye on what Robert has just spoken to the event at which we would have conflict free case management in could no longer contract with just one entity. So just to expound a bit on what Mr. Hernandez had said, the state legislature will need to act to bring Colorado Revised Statutes into conformance with the state rule or the federal rule that was passed a few years ago. And as I shared with you a couple of weeks ago, the Joint Budget Committee, which had been briefed on the conflict, three case management had been presented with some options of adopting conflict, three case management in Colorado with a time vector that went out as far as 2022. So this isn't a quick fix that the state will be doing. Certainly won't be doing it in four days. We hope so. Going back to to your question, why why did the department not consider bidding it out? We saw the efficiencies in having a single agency that's already administering the state and federal Medicaid funds, which support the preponderance of those services as being the most efficient way of continuing to administer the mill levy funds as well. From my last recollection, the middle of you funds comprise between 20 and 25% of all of the funding that Rocky Mountain Human Services is administering. Again, the greater share moneys associated with the federal Medicaid waivers.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. And I intend to vote for this. I'm very much in favor of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it also. And thank you very much for those clarifications.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: One more clarification, sir. So is there a shot clock of some sort for the state to to get in conformance with the federal rules?
Speaker 9: I'm not aware of a specific date by which they are to be in effect. From my conversations with the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and financing, what I had been told is that the leverage that CMS was using to encourage a more timely response at the state level was that they would not approve any changes to the existing waivers that they currently are operating. I haven't verified that with the Federal Center for Medicaid Services, but that's what I had heard from health care policy and finance.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilwoman can.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. JAY So we have heard that one of the speakers tonight was on an advisory board, the Mill Levy Advisory Board for Rocky Mountain Human Services. Is that a board they operate or an advisory group they operate.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilwoman. Rocky Mountain Human Services does operate that military advisory board. Okay, so the department does.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And so my follow up question is, what is our city mechanism for receiving ongoing input and receiving? You know, for example, the questions about this this question of bidding services and or the questions about, you know, defining administrative administrative expenses more precisely, do we have a mechanism why where as the governing body responsible for this contract, we're taking input? What's our mechanism?
Speaker 9: Now. Thank you. The department doesn't have a mechanism that we're actively soliciting input. Our mechanism for affecting the relationship with Rocky Mountain Human Services with respect to the military funds is through the contract that actually ends at the conclusion of 2017 annually. We negotiate the scope of work and the distribution of the funds commensurate with what the mill levy generates in revenue. So to the extent that we specify within that agreement and of course have accountability through the both the quarterly reports and semiannual reports and annual report, which is actually presented to council coupled with our internal auditor who's been hired full time to review and check how the expenditures are traced through documents, boards, and how Rocky Mountain Human Services is spending their administrative costs. That's the extent to which the department has been. Trying to develop its relationship with Rocky Mountain.
Speaker 2: Thank you. If I may, just I guess the follow up comment with I mean, maybe there is the question is, I think that those steps for financial accountability, closer monitoring, are really important. And I commend you for all of them. And I apologize for not raising this at committee, but this is what public hearings are for. They raise new things that we learn about. And so it seems to me we are missing a piece then, which is that we, as the governing body, do need to have some mechanism to be getting feedback from the customer base of the contractor with whom we do business. And so I don't know that you need to invent that method right now at the microphone, but I guess, you know, whether you have an annual public hearing, whether there is an ombudsperson who takes complaints, the way that we do for cable franchise, for example, when we have cable franchise agreements , we don't just have a contract to monitor it. We also have an office where people who have issues can alert us so that when we are dealing with them through the contract, we're aware of what the customer experiences. So I guess I would like to ask if you can do some investigation into the best practices for that kind of input to us as a government in an ongoing way? Because I do think that there are important policy questions that we as a city are going to face. And they're not just about did the books balance there about what should we do going forward and what should we look for in our next contract that is different than this contract? And I guess I feel like we need some mechanism and I don't know if there are recommendations from the auditor with that regard, but I would like to know that the department is aware of the need to fill that gap and collecting feedback from this customer base in an ongoing way, particularly before key decisions are made about future contracts.
Speaker 9: I appreciate that comment and even more appreciate you not putting me on the spot to respond with the plan going forward. But we certainly will bring that back and we'll work with Rocky Mountain Human Services to effect something that isn't redundant to what they're already doing. And I would like the opportunity in the next month or two to come back to committee and share with you how we would effectuate some type of public input into military spending.
Speaker 2: I think that would be great. I and I'm all for efficiency. I just want to be really clear. Our purpose for collecting feedback is different than their purpose for collecting feedback. And just as long as you keep that in mind, you know, efficiency is not the only goal here. It's also about our role is different than their role. But I'm open to I'm open to that. And I don't know, we can figure out. This bill came through the Finance Committee because it deals with taxation. But I think, you know, the human services issues tend to go to Councilman Lopez's committee so we can figure out which committee you come back to. But thank you. I appreciate that commitment. Thank you. With that, I'm happy to support this tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman now.
Speaker 0: Back.
Speaker 5: One last question on Jay. To support what and affirm what councilwoman can say. The contract for Rocky Mountain expires at the end of this year. All right. And so you'll be negotiating. So we should be addressing a lot of those issues at this time with the new contract, which are extremely important, what Castro conditions brought up. So, Jay, you also have that opportunity as well to defend all these issues we've talked about tonight, is that correct?
Speaker 9: That's correct. Thank you. And certainly your city council will see that contract and will have its opportunity to wait. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks. All right. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council Bill 1071 is is closed will now start comments by members of council. You all can return to your seats. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Your first step?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I. Sort of second what council, the ideas that Councilwoman Kennedy was putting out there, including I just want to put it out there, a sort of random survey where you engage the clients and get the feedback. And then if anything sort of surfaces as a potential repeating pattern to pursue that, the, the this need for conflict free case management is important. And so I just I'm glad to hear there's a plan, but DHS, DHHS needs to follow through to meet the intent of this ordinance and align with the latitude that's already been granted meaning or expressed at the federal and state level, and do the best job they can for their constituents. I want to thank Honorable Rob Hernandez for being a champion in a persistent and sort of watchdog in the issues that had gone on for a long time at Rocky Mountain Human Services. And I want to thank Danny and Joe for spending some time with us this evening. And so I'm happy, I'm glad that this has come before us and that I can act. And I'm happy to support this bill. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Looks like we don't have any other speakers. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye.
Speaker 7: Clark Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. Carnage I Lopez. I knew session I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 7: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes Council built in 71 has passed. Congratulations. Thank you, everyone, for your conversations. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 1125 two on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance adopting a new Article XVII of Chapter 53, D.R.M.C. concerning property taxes dedicated for the purpose of purchasing services for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Amends the 2003 initiated ordinance that increased the “Developmentally Disabled Fund” by 1.000 mill to the dedicated property taxes to add Section 53-550 to allow for purchasing services for use of the revenues for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-14-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01092017_16-1166
|
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes counts of 1125 has passed. Congratulations. All right, Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 1166 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1166 series of 2016 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in and seconded. Councilman Susman, will you please offer a motion to postpone?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 1166 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, February six, 2017.
Speaker 1: Right. First and second moves and seconded. Councilwoman Sussman, please offer a comment.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you, Mr. President. This postponement was requested by the applicant and the applicant's representative, who are both ill this evening AM. And they, of course, would like to be here when it's heard. So they've requested that it be postponed.
Speaker 1: All right. It has, but it has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll call, too, on a motion to postpone.
Speaker 7: Sussman. Guy Black. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Herndon.
Speaker 3: Cashman, i.
Speaker 2: Can each I.
Speaker 7: Lopez.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 7: New Sussman. Hi. Oh, sorry, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close voting or announce results. 1212 eyes. I just knows both of them are ill this evening.
Speaker 2: Yes, they're both going around.
Speaker 3: Or they're at the game or they're watching the game.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 1601 W. Jewell Avenue.
Rezones property located at 1601 West Jewell Avenue from E-SU-Dx to PUD G-14 (office and telecommunications tower to planned development) in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-29-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01032017_16-0919
|
Speaker 0: Did. Okay, great. Thank you. I just letting the public know. Great. All right, Councilwoman, can you please put. Actually, you don't have to put that on floor. We're going to go straight to your your bail councilwoman can each, which is 919. Would you like to make a comment first or would you like to.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be offering an amendment on this bill to which pertains to financial disclosure to first remove the minimum $50 threshold for reporting gifts in the covered categories, resulting in the reporting of all gifts received in the designated categories, regardless of value. And the amendment also clarifies, number two, that the new rules for gift reporting will not apply to gifts already received in 2016, but which won't be reported until our 2017 report. Rather, the new rules will take effect upon passage in 2017 and will be applicable for all gifts received from this time forward, but not retroactively to prior years that have already concluded. The first time gifts will be reported under the new rules will be in the reports due in July of 2017 for officers and in January of 2018 for employees.
Speaker 0: Great. Councilwoman, can you please put the bill on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, I move that council bill 19 place be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Counsel, can each your motion to amend.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I move that council bill 919 be amended in the following particulars on page one, delete lines 37 and 38, and on page two, delete lines one through five, striking in its entirety the definition of gift and remembering subsections as appropriate on page two Line 28. After the word required, ADD officers shall file their annual financial report for calendar year 2016, no later than January 31st, 2017. Under the reporting requirements in effect during 2016, beginning in 2018, comma on page two, line 35 after the word required. Add the following beginning in 2018. Comma online to line I'm sorry on page two, lines 39 and 40. Delete the words in excess of $50 comma, either individually or in the aggregate period. And then on page two, line 40, delete the word only on page four, line 24, add the following before the first word. Every employee shall file their annual gift report for gifts received in calendar year 2016, no later than January 31st, 2017. Under the reporting requirements in effect during 2016, beginning in 2018, comma on page four, lines 27 and 28. Delete the words in excess of $50, either individually or in the aggregate.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. I'm looking for a second. All right. It has been moved. And second, it comments from members of council.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to take the simplest change first, which is just making sure that we aren't trying to re collect data that has already occurred in 2016 under new rules that we didn't know were coming or in effect, when you create a new rule, it's generally easiest to apply it going forward. So that's what this the timing changes involve. The other change regarding the $50 threshold, this has been a really long conversation in committee for those who've been following the committee conversation. And I want to commend, first of all, Claire Johnson and her staff and the city attorney's office for really bringing this issue to the council and really causing us to have this conversation. We thought that it was most important to report to the public things that were coming from folks who may have an interest in the city. And so we did that narrowing. We also thought, oh, you know, we have these other, you know, types of categories. And so we had a discussion about raising the threshold to 50 to keep up with the cost of living having changed, not really realizing that with the new reporting, it's very difficult to talk about value in the aggregate when you have two reporting periods in the year. So is it the aggregate within one six month period? Is it the aggregate within the two six month periods? Even though they cross different reports, it would be very difficult for the public to monitor whether or not we were keeping up now that we're going to do multiple reports each year. So, you know, our city attorney made the point, you know, if you're going to limit the gifts that be accepted, it's impossible to monitor whether you're exceeding the limit or not if you are not reporting all of the gifts. So that was the simple kind of logic behind just eliminating the $50 threshold. Many of us, you know, receive, you know, gifts of small value that we'd struggle to value anyway. We don't know the value of the flowers that show up or the, you know, the tickets to to the zoo lights that may show up. And so rather than, you know, trying to guess, is it below or above $25 or $50 in this case, you just report them all. So one of the things I wanted to clarify for both the public and my colleagues is that the amendments that I'm suggesting for tonight are really necessary for the bill in front of us . And I think to make the law that is in place clearer. Should Councilman Flynn bring forward a bill later? We have drafted these amendments to be consistent with his bill, but they are necessary. Even if his bill doesn't come forward or doesn't pass, they really are for the bills before us. But we did try to anticipate and make as much consistency as possible. With that, I'm happy to take questions, but I hope that my colleagues will approve these amendments tonight for a simpler, clearer, more transparent reporting process going forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you.
Speaker 6: You know, I've I have appreciated very much all the discussion we've had in committee, and it's very serendipitous and very fitting that we are doing this on this day. The City Council of Denver is strengthening its ethics rules, ethics rules and its transparency. Right as some members of the U.S. Congress were trying to make their is less transparent and less strong. And so I couldn't think of a better night to bring one of, I think, several bills that Councilman Flynn has worked on and Councilwoman Kennish to bring it on this night to show that it's just another example of cities leading the way in many policy decisions and in many innovations. And I am very proud of what we are doing, although I know I argued a lot in committee about various detail things. I am very proud that we are strengthening our ethics rules and strengthening the transparency of those and appreciate the work that my colleagues have done on this. And I'll be voting for this tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to amplify just briefly. Councilwoman finishes remarks. When the committee adopted the initial amendments to the clerk's disclosure bill, I think it inadvertently had created less transparency by raising the threshold to $50 and then also narrowing the field of people for whom we would report going to lunch, etc.. If, you know, heaven forbid my church choir would ever give me a $50 gift certificate to a restaurant for my birthday, I would under the old rules, I would have to report that. But the public's not really interested in that. They're interested in the lobbyist lunch or the contractor lunch. And so I think the Councilwoman Canisius amendment rightly removes any threshold. The threshold is now zero. So that means every time. And every six months the public will get to see online our financial disclosures. So I think this amendment is a necessary step to to clean up some of the the some of the opaqueness that may have inadvertently been put into this bill in committee. So I urge every one of my colleagues to vote yes and support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flint. Councilman, can you back up?
Speaker 6: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. My apologies for chiming in a second time. First, I just want to thank all the members of the committee, enormous amounts of time spent thinking about these topics. And secondly, before we vote to make sure folks understand that because this amendment does affect the title of the bill, it's going to require republishing afterwards. I just want to make sure folks knew that before we voted that that will be the result and we will then have this bill would be back for final reading next week. So I just wanted that to be on the record. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Amendment is on the floor. 919. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Can each.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Lopez I.
Speaker 3: Knew Ortega. Sussman Black eye. Clark All right. Espinosa Hi. Flynn Hi. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting, announce the results. 3913 Eyes Council Bill 919 has been amended. Councilman can each. We will need a motion in order to order it published as amended.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council Bill 919 be published as amended.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved in second to. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Sorry. When? Moment. Can each I. Lopez I knew. Ortega Assessment. Black eye. Clark. All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn I. Gilmore, i. Herndon Cashman, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close voting in as results.
Speaker 3: 13 Ice.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 919 has been ordered. Published as amended. As amended. All right, Madam Secretary, this will come back January 9th, correct?
Speaker 3: Yes, that's a consideration.
Speaker 0: Okay. This concludes the items that need to be called out. We will now move to the block votes. All other bills for introduction will be published. Council members, please remember, this is your last. 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. Someone can each where you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration on final passage on the floor, please.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. These are all series of 2016 still. So I have 1291, 1292, 13, 11, 13, 13, 13, 14, 12, 68, 1271, 1272 1304 1305 1308 953 1132 1206 1208 1210 1267 1275 1307 920 1172 1258.
Speaker 0: All right. Oh.
Speaker 6: Well, I couldn't see which I'm sorry my screen didn't distinguish. Which are for a final consideration. Which for adoption. I'm sorry. That's okay.
Speaker 0: That's okay. You're supposed to read them all.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Black Eye.
Speaker 3: Clare Espinosa, i. Flynn, I. Gilmore, Herndon. Catherine I. Carnage, I. Lopez I. Knew Ortega. I. Susman Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I just close the voting and announce the results. 13 813 As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. So there are no public hearings and there are no objections from members of Council. We will not take a recess on Monday, January nine, 2017. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1071, adopting a new Article 17 of Chapter 53, the Revised Municipal Code concerning property taxes dedicated for the purpose of purchasing services for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED, a bill for an ordinance amending Article V of Chapter 2 of the Revised Municipal Code pertaining to financial disclosure.
Revises the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding financial disclosure including eliminating the requirement that candidates for municipal office make financial disclosures, modifying the definition of “gift”, “immediate family” and “officer”, modifying the date for submitting the annual financial disclosure statement for city officers, requiring semi-annual gift disclosure reports by officers and annual gift disclosure reports by employees, modifying reportable gifts and increasing the reporting threshold from $25 to $50; making the financial and gift reports of officers publicly available online and the gift reports of employees publicly available on request, and modifying the remedies for violations of the ordinance. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-29-16. Amended 1-3-17 to remove the minimum $50 threshold for reporting gifts in the covered categories, resulting in the reporting of all gifts received in the designat
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12192016_16-0919
|
Speaker 2: Nine eyes, two abstentions. Resolution 1324 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, if you could please put the next item up on our screens. Councilwoman Canete, you've called out comfortable 919 for a comment. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Council Bill 918 is a bill that originated with the clerk's office, and she had been working to really modernize some of our areas of code that do transparency and reporting. Two of the bills, one is on lobbyists. The one that I called out is on financial disclosures, where we as councilmembers and other city employees file if they've received gifts that relate to the work that we do with the city, and then also where we report on, you know, some of our own financial interests so that the public may know if we have interests in the things that we're legislating on. And, you know, I want to there's sometimes more is more. And so there's a couple of changes in this bill that I think are really good, which is that it will be more frequent reporting. So twice a year instead of once a year. So there's less of a time lag before the public is able to see the reports. And also the reports will be available online. So in this case, I think the bill represents more is more one council change that we made in committee to the bill, which is a little bit about less being more, is that we think that the gifts the city is most interested in, our public is most interested is seeing, is those that have any relationship to our duties here. So we narrowed the group of people. So, for example, I don't know that the public has a strong need to know if my neighbor gave me a sweater for Christmas. They have they do no business with the city. And it created confusion, the fact that there were no limits on who you reported. So we narrowed who you're reporting to. And I think that's good. At the same time, we raised the threshold from $20, $25 to $50 at in committee. At that time, I was supportive of that change. And it made a lot of sense because, you know, Councilman Brooks, for example, was recently ill and people gave him flowers that might have been valued at more than 25. And and again, to have, you know, hundreds of flower bouquets reported. And his financing report might not have been the best use of of transparency in terms of helping to understand the city. But as we've proceeded, this bill is moving forward, and I'm going to vote for it tonight. But there's a similar bill dealing with some other issues in the code that Councilman Flynn has been working on. This has been a great example of really doing work in committee where we talk about all the details. But what it means is we're going to discuss his bill again tomorrow. And depending on how his bill goes, I may suggest that because we've narrowed who we are reporting to, that we should really report any meals, tickets that we get from those covered individuals. So I, I very likely will be bringing an amendment forward on this bill, maybe with others, maybe co-sponsoring with Councilman Flynn. But I just wanted to let folks know because I always feel like it can be very surprising if you see nothing on first reading and then maybe have changes on second. So I want to let folks know that I wanted to wait and see how the committee conversation went tomorrow. But it's my belief that if we very much are narrowing who we're reporting on, that it's maybe important to report all of the things that we get, especially since we're reporting twice a year. The threshold used to be if you've done some things that you know, collectively result in a certain amount throughout the course of the year, now that we're reporting more frequently, it just makes sense to report more everything so that people can really see between a first half of the year and a second half of the year what it adds up to. So with that, it is just a heads up to the public and a heads up to my colleagues and fully supportive of this did not pull it out for a vote. But we'll see how committee goes. And we may want to, you know, make a reconciliation on on second reading. So thank you, Mr. President.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED, a bill for an ordinance amending Article V of Chapter 2 of the Revised Municipal Code pertaining to financial disclosure.
Revises the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding financial disclosure including eliminating the requirement that candidates for municipal office make financial disclosures, modifying the definition of “gift”, “immediate family” and “officer”, modifying the date for submitting the annual financial disclosure statement for city officers, requiring semi-annual gift disclosure reports by officers and annual gift disclosure reports by employees, modifying reportable gifts and increasing the reporting threshold from $25 to $50; making the financial and gift reports of officers publicly available online and the gift reports of employees publicly available on request, and modifying the remedies for violations of the ordinance. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-29-16. Amended 1-3-17 to remove the minimum $50 threshold for reporting gifts in the covered categories, resulting in the reporting of all gifts received in the designat
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12192016_16-1069
|
Speaker 3: And we may want to, you know, make a reconciliation on on second reading. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Secretary, if you would, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilwoman Ortega, you've called out Council Bill 1069 for a question. Go ahead. Yes.
Speaker 6: So this is. A proposed amendment between Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation. And I looked through the documents, the cement in IGA, and I was trying to.
Speaker 4: Determine.
Speaker 6: If this had.
Speaker 3: Any.
Speaker 6: Direct correlation to the I-70 project. And I'm not sure if there's someone here that can answer that question. Angela, I see you stepping forward.
Speaker 3: I Angelica system of public works. I believe this does not is not associated with the I-70 projects at all.
Speaker 6: So this has nothing to do with the IGA.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Okay.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Amendment between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to extend the term for the Denver TSSIP 2012 Project.
Amends an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) by extending the term by up to five years for a new end date of 12-31-2021 to allow the City to continue to expend federal funds to procure and install a citywide traffic control system. No change to contract amount (201103095-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-17. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-8-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12192016_16-1195
|
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, moving on, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Cashman, could you please put Council Bill 1195 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 1195 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded and I am going to offer up an amendment. So I move that council bill 1195 be amended in the following particulars on page one, line 21 Strike the date of December six, 2016, and insert the date of December 19th, 2016. And on page one, line 21, strike the clerk filing number of 20160067003 and insert the clerk filing number of 20160067004. Has been.
Speaker 1: Moved.
Speaker 2: And second, it will go on the comments by members of council and I'll start the comments by explaining the amendment. The purpose of the proposed technical amendments to Council Bill 1195 is to make non substantive changes to reflect an amended filing number and date in which an amended packet of amendments to various international codes were submitted to the clerk. The original amendments to the International Fire Code submitted to the Court contained an incorrect piece I reference in IFC Section 913.8.1. or sorry 913.6.1 and incorrect footnote and table entry in table 503.2.1. Both errors have been remedied in the packet of amendments re filed with the clerk. The changes are reflected on pages 238. Footnote one at the bottom of page added additional language clarifying the table and 309 on 3.6.1 Change the PSA from 150 to 175. So that's with the amendment. And then says We have this bill called out. This is one that I'm really excited about and have had the pleasure of working on a package of updates to our codes that are going through. And one of them is about signage, which doesn't sound like the most exciting thing in the world, but four for me and I think for a lot of people, this is a really exciting change to our signage and this is and how we sign single store restrooms. So a restroom that you can go in and lock the door and it's just you inside. And the way our code was set up before was if you had two single stall restrooms or more, you were required to sign them as a men's room and a women's room. And what this amendment does is it changes that to require that these single stall restrooms are signed as gender neutral. And I think that this is just a great example of one your government at work for you, because this was brought forward by the people saying, hey, this is a change we'd like to see. And I think it's also a great example of common sense in in what we do. And that I think that as we started having the conversations about this to every stakeholder group that we talked about, this was a common sense solution as shared in committee, you know, as a share of a few things as I went through this journey, learning about this signage change and starting to pay more attention to the signs that are on the restrooms throughout Denver. But we had, you know, so many different stakeholders at the table talking about how this change of changing something as simple as design was really great for families with children, for transgender people , for caregivers to achieve potty parity, which was a term I had never heard before, but I had experienced many, many times when my eight year old daughter was standing in line at a single stall restroom when right next to it was another one because it had was marked as a men's room. She couldn't use it. And and also our business community when we met with the Downtown Denver Partnership and some of their committees to talk about it, we actually had a business owner who said, Oh, yeah, that's the most ridiculous rule. I put those signs up to tell your inspectors, come and check me off, and then I immediately take them down because it's bad for business. It's bad for business to have people waiting in line when there is nothing different about the bathroom across the hall, and they should be able to to use that. And so I think that this is, again, one of those commonsense changes that really doesn't make a difference for a lot of people. I know that it's going to personally affect my life and my district on Pearl Street and Broadway, where most of the businesses are already doing this. And yet if someone were to call them in prior to us voting, this change through the city would be compelled to take it and find them for having signs that say, Behind this door there's a toilet and anybody who needs a toilet can use it. And I think that it's as simple as that. And so I just want to give a quick shout out because there are a lot of people who put a lot of work into this. So to Jill and the entire CPD team, it's always easy to be on this side of the table and say, Hey, I think we should do it this way. And then not so easy when you're working with an international building code, it turns out to get to that end result. And so thank you to the LGBTQ commission, who is one of the first groups to bring this forward and say, Hey, maybe there's a better way for us to do this. And can we look at this, too? The mayor and the mayor's office, this guy Stuart for all the help and gone through this the downtown Denver partnership one Colorado. And I want to give a big shout out to my colleague, Councilwoman Canete. You really helped me through this. We were partners in crime on looking at this issue and and navigating it. And she just has a wealth of experience that was awesome to be able to rely on. So that's we're amending it to make those very boring. Changes. But it's it's a it's a great change and a great build. And I think it's reflective of the inclusive city that we are, that we make the most simple thing possible as inclusive and as comfortable for every single person as possible. Tonight, when we vote on that vote on the. So with that other comments, Councilwoman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to first, kudos to you. You really did put in a lot of work on this, as did your staff, Maggie. So thank you to Maggie as well and leading in many of the conversations with the business community and others. So thank you for your leadership. And, you know, you mentioned families. He also mentioned the the the the gender issue. I one community we haven't talked about as the disabled community. If you're a caretaker of a different gender than the person you may be a caretaker with and you need to use the restroom. The single store restrooms are usually big enough for you to use. Sometimes they are the disabled restroom and being able to go in there without anyone questioning you is an opportunity for that community. Have more inclusion. I think, you know, some people may wonder why the LGBTQ commission brought this forward. I was just like to do a little public education when we're up here, which is that right now in the state of Colorado, transgender people already have the opportunity to use the bathroom of their gender. If they identify as female, they have the legal right under our laws to use the women's restroom, vice versa if they identify as male. But we know that you can't always legislate a comfort level. You can't legislate the fact that sometimes our community doesn't always understand transgender members of our community. We have a lot more work to do to educate about the lives they lead, the very simple challenges that they face, and the many contributions they have to our community, just like the rest of us, with their employment and with their their their civic engagement. And so this creates just a choice. It's an option, right? So we're not really changing what was already a civil right that a community had, but we're creating an option for folks in our city. And I will just to to to call out the building code, folks. I think that many cities have taken this very simple measure, and they've done it through policy without checking with the building code. And I think that this is an example of how we take common sense steps, which is this is a building issue. It's about how you sign things and we fix the building code. And and I think we might be one of the first cities to have done that that way. So. So kudos to them for doing it through the, the simple and common sense way of, of the building code. So with that, I will be excited to support this tonight. And I think it demonstrates that while, you know, our community may have questions about inclusion, given some of the world events and some of the backlash we've seen against vulnerable communities, I think Denver has been here on these issues of inclusion, will continue to be here and your city will always be a place where people of all backgrounds are welcome and have access to the services they need, like going to the bathroom. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 5: This is the deja vu. We had the same process in committee where we all talked about this. And I won't repeat what my colleagues were eloquent in speaking, but it also with this new regulation creates what I refer to as diaper changing station parity. It is amazing in 2016, essentially 2017, how I will take my 18 month old into a men's bathroom and there's no place for me to change him. And so this requirement, gender neutral, now allows facilities to be in both stations and both of the restrooms. So it's great as a father. So now that burden is no longer on my wife. And so I when I made this comment, that committee, I received an email from somebody else that said, thank you for saying that, because that is something that we should absolutely not be having to deal with in 2016, in addition to certainly the greater needs that my count my council colleagues spoke about as well. So thank you from that perspective, as a father of a toddler, that ability that we my wife doesn't have that burden as much as she should. So kudos to all. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Hernandez, good to hear you talk like a daddy, because it makes me feel good as well, too, because I for for a long time, I raised my daughter and single dad. And when she needed to use the restroom. I'm sending my daughter into this restroom where I have no idea who the heck is in there, hoping that she comes right back out. And those of you who are parents either have a little boy or a little girl, and you send your your kid into the restroom. You have no idea who is in there. That's worrisome. And, you know, you start worrying 30 seconds in, you're like, oh, my God, are they okay? Okay. Now I get to actually go in being be at the sink while she's in the stall, making sure she's okay. Right. And so and that's you know, frankly, to be honest, this shouldn't be something that's strange or unusual unless you have. The little dude or the lady with the skirt. As on your door. Bathroom door is at home. Right? I mean, this is how we have it at home. Might as well do it this way anyway. So I think it's a great it's a great fix for all the reasons that Robin said. Councilwoman, can you just talking about for equity and making sure that we respect that? Absolutely. I'm just surprised that it took us this long to realize that it. So anyway. And plus, what if the lady doesn't want to wear a dress? What if she wants to wear jeans? And that representation, I mean, for crying out loud. Not all girls wear dresses.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. Just a quick question. I don't see Jill here. He's right there. Where? Oh, hiding behind the computer term.
Speaker 5: Would it be possible under this change for some small businesses, some low volume businesses, and.
Speaker 9: Pardon the.
Speaker 2: Expression, to be relieved of the obligation to provide a men's in a women's room. Now, could they get.
Speaker 5: Away with just one and save costs? Does the building code require a small space to provide to restrooms? I'm wondering if this could actually save small business money.
Speaker 6: So I'm going I hope my technical folks correct me if I get this wrong. Jill Jennings Garlock, Deputy Director of Community Planning and Development. This change doesn't change the number of restrooms you have to provide. So if you have to provide under the code one man's and one women's, you still provide that. They're just one is they're both same gender neutral.
Speaker 5: So there still will be a minimum of two no matter how what the size of the business.
Speaker 2: Okay. That might be something worth revisiting.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Just to follow up and clarify on that, there is a level where you're only required to provide one. And it's it's signed, gender neutral or the minimum is two. That's correct. Eric Browning The Denver Building Department.
Speaker 5: The quantity.
Speaker 2: Threshold for a.
Speaker 5: Single bathroom does not change. And that single bathroom, when it's provided.
Speaker 2: Will be required to be same gender neutral. Hmm. Thank you. Thanks for the clarification. All right. So seeing no other comments, madam secretary, raquel espinosa.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Flin i herndon cashman. I can eat lopez. All right. New Ortega II Assessment by Black Eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: All right. Madam Secretary, please close voting and health results.
Speaker 4: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. So Council Bill 1185 has been amended and now we have to vote on passing it. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. As amended.
Speaker 2: So, Councilman Cashman, can you please put accountable 1195 on the floor to pass as amended? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 1195 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. It has been moved and seconded and I think we already got all our comments out of the way. So, Madam Secretary, Rocco O. Great. Councilman Espinosa, you have another comment?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I had one question, actually. My still allowed to ask her, is.
Speaker 2: It just the the whole bill is up now, so go.
Speaker 5: For it. Jill, it's really just a clarification on the on the fire side. These minimal unobstructed widths. Is there a height, a vertical component?
Speaker 6: No, it's just a horizontal component.
Speaker 5: So if you had 14 feet or 20 feet of clearance, you can't then bridge over that gap.
Speaker 6: So the bridging of a street, for instance, would be set by the utility easements underneath that. So I believe Denver Water, for instance, requires a 24 foot clear over any utility. I can't say if Denver fire has something different than that. Okay. They're shaking their head now.
Speaker 5: This looked like it would be it would be applicable even on interior lots. And, you know, so it's not just true.
Speaker 6: It is it does apply to private streets as well. There's a minimum width in order to ensure fire trucks get access. Yes.
Speaker 5: So there we do have provisions, though, that will allow encroachment over these obstructed I mean, these clear these horizontal clearances.
Speaker 6: I believe so, yes. That would have to go through a process of approval by each utility and other provider.
Speaker 5: All right. It's just something that I'll probably follow up with you, because, sure. If there's a way to put development over the top of these things, somebody in northwest Denver will find a way. So I would like to follow up with you guys. Thank you to talk. All right.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black by Espinosa. I Flynn, i herndon. I can I can eat. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Sussman Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announced the results.
Speaker 4: Let's see. Sorry, Espinosa.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 2: Lebanese Lebanese counterpart, 1195, has passed as amended. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilwoman Canete, you have called out comfortable 1231 for a comment. Go ahead.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Building and Fire Code of the City and County of Denver.
Amends Article II of Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to approve a second set of amendments to the approved 2016 Denver Building and Fire Code. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-29-16. Amended 12-19-16 to make non-substantive changes to reflect an amended filing number and date in which an amended packet of amendments to various International Codes were submitted the Clerk. The original amendments to the International Fire Code submitted to the Clerk contained an incorrect PSI reference in IFC Section 913.6.1, and an incorrect footnote and table entry in Table 503.2.1. Both errors have been remedied in the packet of amendments re-filed with the Clerk. The changes are reflected on pages 238 (footnote 1 at bottom of page added additional language clarifying the table) and 300 (913.6.1 changed the psi from 150 to 175).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12192016_16-1231
|
Speaker 3: I was honored to represent the council and really grappled with what are the ways to work appropriately with private sector owners of apartment buildings, commercial buildings, to think about ways to reduce the impact on climate. And so a lot I learned a lot about the many options and the conclusions were that there is more we can do . And so this ordinance represents the first two steps, which is to, first of all, make sure all those owners know what their energy consumption is. And second of all, to make that transparent. Why transparent? Well, we're competitive in the United States. Just making something public makes folks want to do better. Right. And so we've seen in cities that have made this information transparent that, you know, energy usage drops by a couple percentage points just for making it public. We know that, you know, tenants want to know this information. Maybe it determines what their payments are going to be for these utilities or they want to be in a green building that matches their their values. So it's important for tenants, for buyers of buildings. So so there's a lot of benefits to making this information public. There was a lot of conversation about asking buildings that don't have very good energy scores to do more to make some improvements. Now, that's a hard thing to ask a business to finance upfront, but one of the things we talked about was making sure that those things pay back, right? So you get a little you have a little upfront payment, but you earn it back over time as you have lower heating bills or lower electrical bills. And so you really end up even and the climate ends up the winner. So the the real consensus with the mayor's office was that it was important for us to learn about the scores and get folks started with these first two steps first. And I'm fully supportive of that. I'm hopeful that we have dramatic drops in energy usage from the commercial sector. But I am very pleased that we've committed to come back and talk about this again in 2018 so that we can keep the conversation going and so that if we need to take more action, this is critical. It's critical. Denver is connected to the state economy in terms of tourism. If we don't have thriving ski mountains because we have climate change, we are hurting. We depend on the food sources. And so our city is intimately connected to these issues and we have an obligation to stick with this as long as it takes to get it to get some impacts reduced. So with that, I'm really enthusiastically supportive. I want to thank the departments that worked on it and especially the stakeholders. We had a lot of owners of buildings, you know, experts and, you know, community businesses that do energy improvements all at the table. So for those that are watching or here tonight, I just want to thank you for all your time and encourage my colleagues. I know this is on the consent agenda, but not just to pass it, but to feel good about the fact that we're taking a really important step forward on climate change. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman and Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete, for your hard work on this. I just wanted to give a shout out to our apartment buildings and our condominium buildings. While they are big energy users, they're much more efficient than single family homes. And so one of the other issues we talk about as a city is. All in the impact of sprawl on our environment. And single family homes actually are big users of energy, too. And there may only be one or two or three people living in a single family home. And if they're far away from the city, people are probably driving. So this is a good balanced compromise, but multifamily buildings are actually much more energy efficient. So just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that.
Speaker 8: Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. I'll just jump in that. I'm very excited about this, Bill. Thank you, Councilwoman, for your work representing us. And I hope that we will continue to push harder to be a leader in sustainability on this front and on all the other fronts, because I think that's the city that we we are and we should be. All right. This concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. You're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members, please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Cashman, were you pleased with the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Thank you, 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. These are all series of 2016 resolutions 1168 1228, 1249 1250 1251 1252, 12, 13, 12, 14, 12, 15 1242 1243, 1245 1246 1236 1237 1238 1241, 1253 1254 1255, 1256, 1263 and bills for introduction also series of 2016 919 920 1172.
Speaker 4: Bills on final you'll need bills on final.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: The bills on final. Those on 530 with 1196.
Speaker 2: Not the bills on introduction. 1196 is the first one. Sure. 1196 1218 1226 1083 1084, 1171, 1069.
Speaker 5: 1189, 1198.
Speaker 0: 1200 1201.
Speaker 2: And 1231. Thank you, Madam Secretary. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 4: Black. I Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I Herndon. I Cashman. Hi, Kenny Lopez. New Ortega. I i Mr. President. All right. 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, there will be required public hearing on Council Bill 1030 for changing the zoning classification for 1209 North Perry Street.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article I and adding a new Article V to Chapter 4 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver regarding energy efficiency in commercial and multifamily buildings.
Amends Chapter 4 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to add a requirement for commercial and multi-family buildings over 25,000 square feet to track and publicly report their energy performance as part of the City’s plan to reach its 2020 climate goal. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-30-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12052016_16-1143
|
Speaker 1: All right, I'll do a quick recap. Councilman Flynn, you no longer need to call out Council 1138. Okay, great. Council man Espinosa, you want to call up for a vote? 1143. Yes. Okay, great. Madam Secretary, can you please bring up I believe that is in the bills on final consideration. 1143.
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Okay. Madam President, pro tem councilman. Clerk, will you please put Council Bill 1143 on the floor for consideration to pass?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1143 be placed to fund final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second and comes from as a council. Councilman. Yeah. So last week, this is one of two bills I attempted to postpone. This one was successful. I did, in fact, meet with the real estate office, and I wasn't completely satisfied with the answers that I received. So therefore, I will be so I don't feel comfortable moving this forward. So I will be abstaining from this vote tonight. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. So, you know the comments of Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Stephen Flynn. I feel more Cashman can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Black Eye. Clark. All right. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please close voting. You know, I can announce the results because I can see them now.
Speaker 2: Ten eyes, one.
Speaker 1: Ten eyes, one. Abstention. The motion passes. It's move on to final consideration and do pass 1143. All right. All bills for introduction are ordered publish. We are now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills from consideration council members. Please remember, this is a consent or block vote. You'll need to say otherwise. This is your last chance to call it. And I don't want to provoke. Councilman, clerk. Will you please put bills? Please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills in front of the situation on final passage on the floor.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in block for the following items. 1138 1169 1158 1135 1164 1165 1159 1160. 1167 1175 1180 1187 1123. 1145 1130 1133 1134 1142 1146 1147. 1148 1149 1150. And 1124.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second it. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black eye. Clark.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I heard it. Catherine. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega. I missed president.
Speaker 1: I police calls voting in Nasr results. Lebanese 11 eyes. The resolution has been adopted and the bills have been placed for final consideration and do pass since there are no public hearings and there will be no objections if there be no objections from members of council.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Partial Release of Use Restriction and Right of Reentry for CDOT Parcel between the City and County of Denver and Metropolitan Football Stadium District for land the Metropolitan Football Stadium District will convey to the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Authorizes the partial release of use restriction and right-of-reentry for City parcels previously deeded to the Metropolitan Football Stadium District to allow the Colorado Department of Transportation to construct a new headquarters on Stadium Parcels B6, B7, and B8, at approximately West Colfax Avenue and Mile High Stadium West Circle in Council District 3. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-19-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-17-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11282016_16-1121
|
Speaker 2: Very good. Thank you, Mr. President. I just don't want to vote during a block vote on $80 million without the public understanding what we're doing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Madam Madam Secretary, next item, please, which is one, one, two, one and kills 15. Your question.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This one's a little simpler. I don't know Angela or John. Maybe we could address this, but in the WRAL contractor's contract to update our traffic signals throughout the city, some that need updating. Do we know how many of these include my. My nemesis, the flashing yellow arrow? Can you?
Speaker 0: Cosmo. My name is John U at the public works transportation and mobility.
Speaker 4: The that this contract is an on call contract so there is.
Speaker 0: No identify locations where there are going to be any flashing yellow arrows identified.
Speaker 2: With. Okay thank you Angela maybe you can help them. Last time we met on this, I talked about driver confusion. People don't understand. What does this mean differently than a green ball? Which. And the answer is it means nothing differently. I still see a lot of driver confusion around these intersections. And we talked last year about doing some public education and I haven't seen it, has it occurred and I just missed it yet.
Speaker 3: We did develop a video that we put on YouTube and we sent it out to we sent it out on our social media network and there was a press release that went out as well.
Speaker 2: I remember that, okay, we're not doing any essays or anything.
Speaker 3: We haven't done any pieces. Okay. So we've mostly done it through social media.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. In the meantime, an acquaintance of the daughter of an acquaintance of mine was in an accident at one of these installations because of the confusion over them. So I'd like to see that ramped up if we could. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, we all have our nemesis Sunk City Council. Madam Secretary, next item. Council on article. You are calling this item up for a vote? Yes, sir. Right. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 1087 on the floor for publication?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and W. L. Contractors, Inc. to rebuild traffic signals within the City.
Amends an on-call contract with W. L. Contractors, Inc. by adding $4.4 million for a new total contract amount of $6,314,207.80 and extending the term by two years for a new end date of 9-30-18 to rebuild existing outdated traffic signals within the City (201522741-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-19-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-17-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11282016_16-1087
|
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, we all have our nemesis Sunk City Council. Madam Secretary, next item. Council on article. You are calling this item up for a vote? Yes, sir. Right. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 1087 on the floor for publication? I move that council bill 1087 be ordered published. All right. It's been moved the second. Now it's been moved, and second it comes. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. This item came to committee and we had a discussion about it. I believe because we do water quality as part of all of the wastewater projects. There isn't a need for additional. Fund to be created. The explanation we were given in committee is that they wanted some transparency in segregating out the water quality projects. And I just I don't agree with that thinking. I think since these are all part of an enterprise fund already where the water quality is being addressed as part of them, I am going to vote no, thank you
Speaker 0: . All right. Any other comments? So in other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Ortega. No. Sussman. Black. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I close voting against the results.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes, one knee.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, 1a1. Hey, not a constable. 1087 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, next item. Councilor Lopez, you're calling on Constable 1143 for a question and a vote to postpone final consideration to December 12th, 2016. That's correct. The other Lopez Councilman Espinosa.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance creating a Fund Number in the Wastewater Management Enterprise Fund for the “Water Quality Capital Projects”.
Establishes a new storm capital improvement fund for the Public Works Wastewater Management Division for the Regional Water Quality Program. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-10-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11282016_16-1143
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, 1a1. Hey, not a constable. 1087 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, next item. Councilor Lopez, you're calling on Constable 1143 for a question and a vote to postpone final consideration to December 12th, 2016. That's correct. The other Lopez Councilman Espinosa. Sorry.
Speaker 5: That as I say, I don't have a problem with this.
Speaker 0: That is correct. Why did you say I couldn't hear? No, I'm just joking. All right. So, Councilman, you're going to put Bill 1143 on the floor for publication. I move that council bill 1087 be ordered published.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: 1143 1143 1140 oh oh. Sorry. Yes. Yeah. I moved that council. Bill 1143 be ordered published. Sorry, I'm a step ahead of myself. Yep. Okay. It's been moved in, so I might have messed you up there. It's been moved in a second. Councilman, go ahead and make your comments. Is so I still have questions on it. I was going to ask them on the floor, but I couldn't formulate them all in a sort of succinct way. So I really just need the extra time to have that conversation offline. But before I'm comfortable putting it mean having to moving it through. So, Councilman, are you asking for us to vote this down just to postpone further to a date certain on 12th? 12th. Okay, great. Councilor Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, I. Thank you, Mr. President. I know this is and this is around our boundary and council district three and one by the stadium. This is for that seat on for the new headquarters. And so here's the thing. I, I wanted to call up Geoff or or somebody from that can kind of speak to this from real estate. If we postpone it, does that create any kind of problem with with the transaction or with Sudan? I mean, here's the thing. I I'm more than happy to. You know, hear this. And a week later, if it doesn't mean that we're going to be putting anybody behind the eight ball here, because I know this is big, this is a big deal.
Speaker 2: I'm Jeff Steinberg. I'm director of real estate for the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 0: Councilman, the.
Speaker 2: City that is planning to break ground on this property on December 5th, they can't move forward. They're actually financing the project with CLP.
Speaker 0: Funds and.
Speaker 2: It's a requirement of the lender to have this released in order for them to move forward with the loan. So it would certainly create issues and or problems on their project in terms of construction contract and timing.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Steinberg and Mr. President and Councilman Espinoza, I don't get this is real cut and dry. I mean, I think when it when it came to committee, it had some question. But it. It's. See that moving onto a parcel that is empty. And I think it's a big deal here for the west side. And I think. If that's the case, we should not postpone and you can have your questions or ask them now I guess, and the figures are suffice, but I wouldn't want to see it postponed because I think it throws a monkey wrench in this whole thing
Speaker 0: . Hey, just. Just a point of order. So on the on the floor right now is the actual publication. So we will need to order it published and then we'll vote on that and they will vote for a postponement later. Councilman Espinosa, do you want to respond? With regard to publication. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Regards to Councilman Lopez's request. Yeah. I mean, I'm happy if everyone will bear with me. I'm happy to ask the questions now. Like I said, I'm not totally succinct in how I was going to formulate them, but I'm happy to do that now, recognizing that there is now a deadline. I think it's silly. We are not obligated to move until 1219 on this. So why would CDOT, you know, put their shovel in the ground a full 14 days ahead of that date? But, you know, I've been in this position before. I can work with the situation. Okay. Tell us briefly.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, I wanted to suggest, since it is just publication, that we ordered it published, that would allow Councilman Espinosa a week to get answers and then not delay final, but to postpone publication until 1212. It's not it is definitely not a good idea because that would delay it now until the 19th. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You know, Councilman Councilman Espinosa, I think we're. Go ahead and vote on the publication. Do you want to respond to Councilman Flynn's? That's fine if you're really interested in killing a really good project. Okay. I do have legitimate questions that I thought would be better save for a discussion with Jeff and company, but that's great . Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I Herndon. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. All right. Ortega. Sussman. Black. Clark. All right. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: So I'm just like you. 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Constable 1143 has been published. Councilman, you'll have a week to to meet with the team and get your questions answered. Okay. Counsel Madam Secretary, please bring up the next item. Council Bill 1078.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Partial Release of Use Restriction and Right of Reentry for CDOT Parcel between the City and County of Denver and Metropolitan Football Stadium District for land the Metropolitan Football Stadium District will convey to the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Authorizes the partial release of use restriction and right-of-reentry for City parcels previously deeded to the Metropolitan Football Stadium District to allow the Colorado Department of Transportation to construct a new headquarters on Stadium Parcels B6, B7, and B8, at approximately West Colfax Avenue and Mile High Stadium West Circle in Council District 3. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-19-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-17-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11212016_16-1181
|
Speaker 0: Communications. Do we have any communications?
Speaker 2: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: We have four proclamations this evening, so that's exciting. Councilwoman Black, will you please read Proclamation 1181?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 1181 honoring Peggy Long for her service to the Denver Metropolitan Scientific and Cultural Facilities District. Whereas Denver City Council wishes to recognize Peggy Long, who has provided exceptional guidance and vision as executive director of the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District CFD for nine years and is now retiring. And. Whereas, arts, culture and science opportunities provided by CFT funded organizations spur economic growth in the region and improve quality of life for our communities. Located throughout the district, which is comprised of the counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Douglas and Jefferson and the city and county of Broomfield in the city and county of Denver. And. Whereas, under Peg's leadership, CFT was successfully renewed in November 2016 after a multiyear process which was the most inclusive in CFD history. And. Whereas, in 2015 and 2016, Peggy worked with the CFT bill sponsors and supporters to implement changes in the CFD statute to ensure CFD is continued purpose to provide access to arts and cultural opportunities to the citizens of the CFD. And. Whereas, PEG has served the region on various boards and commissions and has participated in numerous community initiatives such as being a member of the Visit Denver Board of Directors and its Government and Community Affairs Committee participation in the Denver Metro Chamber's 2013 Leadership Exchange. Trip to Pittsburgh. Collaboration with the Colorado Business Community for the Arts in the Scientific and Cultural Collaborative. Supporting efforts to establish the City of Denver's Imagine 2020 Cultural Masterplan and was a 20. Sorry. 2009 Graduate of Denver Metro Chamber Leadership Foundation's Leadership Denver. And. Whereas, during Peg's tenure, SFD was honored with several awards, including the Maisel Arts and Culture Center's 2016 Cultural Achievement Award, Colorado Children's Corrals, 2014 All the Worlds Our Stage Award, Cherry Creek Arts Festival's 2009 Distinguished Patron Award. Visit Denver's 2009 Tourism Star Award and Theater Communications Group 2008 Regional Funder Award. And. Whereas, with an unwavering commitment to continue and build on CFT legacy of providing access to arts, cultural and scientific opportunities for all in the CFD community, PEG has earned the respect and appreciation of the citizens of CFD, cultural and scientific organizations, CFD staff and board and public officials throughout the district. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council hereby honors Peggy Long for her distinguished service to the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District and the citizens of the District and wishes her well upon her retirement. Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to Peg Long.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Mr. President, I move that proclamation 1181 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second to comments from members of Council Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I am really honored to serve on the board of this CFD. It's an organization unique in the entire nation. It's the envy of cities around the country. Numerous cities have contacted Peg Long and the organization to see how they could replicate this district in their communities. And so far, no one has been able to do it. The CFD has provided almost $1,000,000,000 over its 30 year history to arts and culture and science organizations in the metro area. It's the reason why we have world class arts and culture here in Denver. Peg has been a huge part of that success as the executive director for nearly a decade.
Speaker 5: She's had a big effort to.
Speaker 4: Increase transparency and accountability to the public. And five years ago, she started working on the reauthorization, which we just passed a few weeks ago, and we're very, very happy about that. Peg brought diverse voices together to reach a compromise that had overwhelming support, and she led the effort to get our state legislature to put CFD on the ballot. I've been honored to serve on the board and it's been a true pleasure to work with Peg. And I know she's going to go do great things and have a really good time that she totally deserves. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black tie Clark Espinosa, Flynn I Gilmore I caution Lopez. I knew Ortega. I assessment I Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I close voting, announce results.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Proclamation 1181 is adopted. Councilwoman Black. Is there anyone you want to bring up?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to invite Dan Hopkins, who's the chairman of the board for the CFT and Peg Wong to come up here to the podium. And I also was hoping Peggy Layman was going to be here tonight. So anyone see.
Speaker 0: The Peggy Layman?
Speaker 4: Peggy Layman.
Speaker 0: I wish I wish she was up here.
Speaker 5: Peggy Lehmann was the district court.
Speaker 4: Councilperson before I was, and she also preceded me on the CFT board and she currently does serve as a governor appointee on the board and I was hoping she was going to be here, but since she's not. Dan, would you like to say a few words about Peggy?
Speaker 6: Yes, thank you very much. And thank you for honoring Peg tonight. She certainly deserves it. As was mentioned, we just had the election with the CFD, was reauthorized for 12 years. It passed in all seven counties. But the county, which had the most overwhelming positive support, but nearly three fourths of the voters saying I was city and county of Denver and we wouldn't be in this position in all the.
Speaker 3: Counties if it had not been.
Speaker 6: For Peg's dedication during the last five years to build consensus, to build coalitions, and to move this process forward. So the board is going to miss her a great deal. She is an invaluable throughout those nearly ten years of her service. And we really appreciate her recognition tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm I'm honored. I'm, quite frankly, speechless when Kendra told me that she was bringing this proclamation. I was overwhelmed. I have had the pleasure of serving with three council members in my tenure at CFR, with Marsha Johnson, Peggy Layman, and now with Kendra Black. And it has really been a pleasure to work with them. I've had the pleasure of working with President Brooks on the Government Affairs Committee of Visit Denver and have really enjoyed my time working with him in that capacity as well. Thank you so much for this. It really.
Speaker 7: Means a lot to me and Denver means a lot to.
Speaker 2: The CFD as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Congratulations and congratulations on the win. Councilwoman Black, thank you for sponsoring that. I will read Proclamation 1183 Honoring Daddy Bruce Randolph and His Legacy. Whereas, Elder King Harris, Reverend Ronald Wooding and formerly former pastors of Epworth United Methodist Church are determined to continue the 52 year tradition initiated by Daddy Bruce Randolph in 1964 to providing
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Peg Long for her service to the Denver Metropolitan Scientific and Cultural Facilities District.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11212016_16-1184
|
Speaker 0: All right. Feels good, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you for putting this forward. Is there anything, anybody you'd like to bring up?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to sincerely thank Councilman Cashman, because immediately after we around the operations table started to talk about this proclamation. Within an hour, he had sent me over some draft language that then I was able to to take and craft and add things to. And actually, I love it when things happen organically because I did not have someone to stand. And so I was going to basically say, I invite all who are joining us tonight to stand in solidarity. In solidarity. But you've already done that. So thank you very much. That's amazing. And with with that, I have nothing more. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. And we just want to applaud you for bringing this up at operations, and I'm glad we were able to add it. So thank you so much. All right. For our fourth and final proclamation. Councilman Clarke, please read Proclamation 1185.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation standing together with Denver moving forward.
Sponsored by the entire Denver City Council of 2016: Gilmore, Kashmann, Black, Brooks, Clark, Espinoza, Flynn, Herndon, Kniech, López, New, Ortega, Susman.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11212016_16-1185
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. And we just want to applaud you for bringing this up at operations, and I'm glad we were able to add it. So thank you so much. All right. For our fourth and final proclamation. Councilman Clarke, please read Proclamation 1185.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I have proclamation number 16, Dash 1185, declaring the city and county of Denver as a compassionate city in accordance with the Charter for Compassion. Whereas the entrance to the Wellington E Webb Municipal Office Building proclaims What is the city but the people? And improving the well-being of the people of Denver is the shared work of our government, private and nonprofit sectors. And. Whereas, Denver's many historic champions of compassion, Little Raven, Potato Clark, Emily Griffith, Dr. Justine Afford Paco Sanchez, Minya Sweet Daddy, Bruce Randolph, Lena Archuleta and all the great philanthropists have set a high example for our citizens. And. Whereas, elevating mutual helpfulness and human respect among their citizens is the sole intention of the nearly 80 community governments around the world that have endorsed the Golden Rule based Charter for Compassion. These include the world's first compassionate neighborhoods Denver's LoDo and Luckey District seven Overland Park, with hundreds more cities pursuing such endorsements. And. Whereas, in 2013, the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted the resolution compassion as an effective public policy, citing the need for secular leadership in promoting compassion, its benefits to at risk youth and potential savings from reduced crime. And. WHEREAS, Denver's own Agency for Human Rights and Community Partnerships, along with other targeted city initiatives, have long facilitated greater equality, deep connection and full belonging for the members of challenged communities within the Denver population. And. Whereas, acts of compassion boost well-being for both helper and beneficiary, but high city population and density link to increased stress, anxiety and depression so that as Denver rapidly grows, measures such as making compassion one of our core civic values can help keep pace with the public health challenges of urban living. And. Whereas, in designating Denver a compassionate city in accord with the Charter for Compassion, Denver calls on its many civic minded businesses, nonprofits, registered neighborhood organizations and on its neighboring cities throughout the metro area and Colorado to join in supporting the cultivation of compassion and acts of compassion for the well-being of all. 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 commits to participate in and help to expand inclusivity, conversations, and systems that are free of oppression. Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy here of be forwarded to the manager of Public Works.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 1185 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. Need a second? And get a second. There we go. There's been moves. And second, it comes by members of council. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, this dovetails really well with what we've been talking about tonight, and that was not planned. I've been working on this with with one of my constituents who I'll talk about later. For a long time now. And for me, you know, this is after everything that we talked about tonight, this is the. Okay. And and what next? And my favorite part of this is, you know, cultivation of compassion and acts of compassion for the well-being of all. It's really about taking care of each other and having respect and compassion for the people that we are bouncing around this big and increasingly busy and vibrant city every day. And for me, you know, I've seen this both through my involvement with the local community when they adopted it and also before I was on council through my involvement through the South Platte River with the Overland community. But it really didn't hit home for me until I started going every week to registered neighborhood association meetings. And for those of you who might have been to one in your neighborhood, you should really try going to like all of them because it is quite the experience when you all of a sudden are going to all these different community meetings and seeing how different each neighborhood, even when they're right next to each other and share a border, how different they are and how different the discourse at these meetings are and how these communities and these neighbors relate to each other. And immediately, the overland neighbor neighborhood, it just felt different. And when you're going to a lot of these things, you know, if that's the only one you go to, maybe you don't notice. But when you go to these things, you know, three nights a week, every night, every week of your life, you really pick up on these things. And it wasn't that subtle either, that this neighborhood just felt different. And at the end of every meeting in these neighborhood meetings, as everything in our life, as we're talking about our city can be confrontational, they can be full of conflict. And we will see that play out in this room probably tonight and every night that we meet where there are disagreements and there are places where we don't agree and we don't agree on the vision for our city and we don't agree on. Barking dogs and we don't agree on everything big and small. And those play out in these rooms. And so often that's where the conversation ends in conflict and turmoil and anger in conflict and not at the Oval and never had meetings because every single meeting in the Oval, in neighborhood since they have adopted, had become a compassionate neighborhood under the charter for compassion ends with their moment for compassion, and it is the greatest thing ever. I won't lie to you and tell you that I look forward to going to every neighborhood meeting because I really would prefer to be home with my kids occasionally at night so they remember who I am. But I can tell you that when I am feeling beat up and depleted from this job or from life being there at the end of an overland neighborhood, when there is a moment for compassion where everybody says, Yeah, we've had our disagreements, we've had our stuff, we're trying to work through this, we're neighbors, there's conflict. And now we're going to take a second to talk about where we saw these moments. These we're going to cultivate compassion and acts of compassion for the well-being of all. And to hear people reach out and say, you know, here's what somebody in this room did for me or here's what somebody in this room did for somebody else that I saw or hears with somebody who I don't even know who they are. Did for me is really powerful. And I don't think that there like I said at the beginning, it was not planned this way. But I don't think that there is a better night since I've been on council to sit here and declare Denver a compassionate city. Then tonight, given the climate that we are in. So I would I would just ask all my colleagues to enthusiastically support this, and I would invite you all to come see it in action at the Overland Neighborhood Associations, third Thursday of every month. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I think it's the fourth.
Speaker 6: Fourth Thursday. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman, for bringing this forward. And I think we need to have a moment of compassion every time after council. That would be very helpful. Okay, Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd just like to be added to the proclamation, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 0: Great. All right. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Clarke.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, i. Cashman. I. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. I. Sussman. I. Black. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting. Announce results.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Proclamation. 1185 has been adopted. Councilman, is there anyone you want to bring up?
Speaker 6: There is. I would like to invite one of my favorite people on the planet, the resident historian for South Central Denver, and a man that I have a great deal of respect for who educated me on this process and pushed and prodded and helped us get to tonight. Mr. Jack Unruh.
Speaker 9: And Fox would like to say a word as well.
Speaker 6: Yep. I thought you were going to pass the baton, so I thought I'd start with you.
Speaker 9: I will pass it to her. Yeah. It'll be. It'll be past.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 7: You go, girl. Okay, great. Thank you, Jack. So first, thank you, Councilman Clark, for sponsoring the plaque proclamation and the members, the rest of the members of the City Council for recognizing the value of proclaiming Denver a compassionate city and doing the work you do. And tonight was an amazing example of Denver being a compassionate city. I'm representing tonight the exciting neighborhood of LoDo. We were designated a compassionate neighborhood by the Charter for Compassion in 2014. It was actually the first neighborhood. There were other cities and end states, but we were the first neighborhood. The purpose of the Compassionate Community campaign is to encourage and help communities integrate compassionate action in the fabric of civic life to bring compassion to life. So consider how different our world would be if compassion, a fundamental concern for others, is the motivating factor behind all of our decisions, even when we're in conflict. Karen Armstrong, the founder of the Charter for Compassion, defines a compassionate city as an uncomfortable city. Uncomfortable when anyone is homeless or hungry, every child isn't loved and given an opportunity to grow and thrive. When any group anywhere in the world is marginalized or oppressed and when we don't treat our neighbors as we would wish to be treated. So I was pleased to see that Mayor Hancock recognized the growing uncomfortableness in our city post-election and released his video last week and then the council's proclamation this evening. It is sure, as asked, that you were committed to keeping Denver an inclusive and welcoming city. So when I first learned about the Compassionate Community campaign, my intention was to have Denver recognized. Those who knew about the great things we were doing and LoDo suggested I start there. It's Judy Monteiro, my councilwoman at the time. Michael Sapp, our Neighborhood Liaisons Liaison, and Derek Yakubu, Director of Human Rights and Community Outreach. And it made sense. It is in the neighborhood where everyone has the opportunity to give and receive compassionate acts. And Denver is a city of neighborhoods. So Jack, who you will hear from next, recognize this as well? And he was the catalyst to get his community, Overland Park recognized and then to get us to the proclamation this evening. So although most think of LoDo as an entertainment district in which it is many who live and work there consider it the best sense of community they have ever experienced, which is very rare for an urban setting. And I think it has a lot to do with the fact that residents and businesses work together on projects that give back to the community and those in need. So it has been our experience that the actual process of becoming recognized has helped to enhance an even stronger sense of community by celebrating the compassionate acts that are already being done. And we've done that this evening, many of them. And by expanding our consciousness about compassion, we are more likely to do more kind acts and respond to the needs of others. So I am happy and grateful that I live in a neighborhood and in a city.
Speaker 4: That sees.
Speaker 7: Compassion as something worthy to focus on. So thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. We've worked many years on this.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Profound. Thanks. City council members and to each of you and to District Seven's Julian Clarke and his awesome staff who brought this proclamation to you on our behalf. Thanks to Mayor Hancock, whose mayoral proclamation that today, November 21st. Yep. Here we are is Compassion Moves Denver Day. Good things will happen within the frame that these proclamations have created. Thanks to Han and others who have worked on Charter for Compassion Matters and to my fellow Overland Park Neighborhood Association members who became a compassionate neighborhood side by side with LoDo by membership vote on the first ballot
Speaker 3: . Adding bylaws requiring that each member each.
Speaker 9: Meeting close with the Neighborhood Compassion Report.
Speaker 3: These people are brilliant.
Speaker 9: Thanks to everyone who came to welcome this proclamation tonight and to those who celebrate Daddy Bruce Randolph here tonight. And with the unexpected city council resolution that Councilwoman.
Speaker 3: Gilmore brought forth.
Speaker 9: We got a taste of Dr. King's beloved community. People ask me if I've got an elevator speech about this, and I say, the building hasn't been built. That's tall enough. But out of compassion, I'll keep these next remarks short engaging citizens, as Denver writes in a more consciously compassionate outlook as our overarching goal here. Celebrating Denver's many ongoing compassion.
Speaker 3: Moves and joining in. Even more of this work will be the result.
Speaker 9: We can trust that compassion is not a fifth wheel nicety. Something is going on when 80 some cities around the world have taken this step. As with this proclamation this evening, with hundreds more pursuing it. Something's going on. When the U.S. Conference of Mayors issues a compassion resolution and when its 2016 keynote speaker is the Dalai Lama. And when most large university neuroscience programs have a dedicated compassion research component in the National Institute of Health website links to thousands of articles on compassion. And when science is studying urban happiness and well-being as public health and economic.
Speaker 3: Indicators and businesses are.
Speaker 9: Looking closely at these metrics when planning to relocate and when people are again crossing racial, ethnic, gender, religious and political barriers to stand up for the beloved community they long for. Learning is the human way into life change. The more you get into compassion, the more it gets into you. You can find out more about this new picture of our ancient moral virtue at the charter for Compassion, Dawg. And finally, gratitude follows compassion as a baby whose diapers have just been changed. Let us be humbly thankful this Thursday and consider the compassion that made possible whatever gifts, however small we enjoy.
Speaker 3: Amen.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Clark as well. All right, we're ready for the resolutions. Madam Secretary, do you have any resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation declaring the City and County of Denver as a compassionate city in accordance with the Charter for compassion.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11212016_16-1066
|
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. Resolution 1065 has passed. Congratulations. The Council is now convene as the board of Directors of the Rhino General Denver General Improvement District. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please read the resolution? 1066 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 1066 be adopted.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. Waiting for a second. Thank you, Mary Beth Sussman. It has been moved. The second ever public hearing from Resolution 1066 is now open for his last staff report. Michael Kerrigan, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Good evening, board members. Michael Carrigan again from the Department of Finance. I'm here before you tonight to request to have the staff report and request approval for the Reno Denver General Improvement District 2017 Annual Work Plan and Budget. The district is located northwest of downtown and includes residentially and commercially assessed properties around the Brighton Boulevard corridor. Generally, the guide is centered on Brighton Boulevard, stretching from I-70 in the north to 29th Street on the south and bounded east by the Union Pacific Railroad line and to the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad Line. The guide supports infrastructure enhancements and maintenance in the neighborhood, including streetscape and streetscape enhancements to Brighton Boulevard. City Council approved the formation of the Rhino Denver Guide by Ordinance Number 309 Series 2015 and establish City Council as ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The ordinance also created a district advisory board comprised of property owners within the district. The ordinance specified that the A that the Advisory Board should subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, conduct and manage all affairs of the District as as the authorized agent for the Board of Directors. The District Advisory Board has created the 2017 board budget before you tonight. The Budget proposes overall expenditures of $621,824 and overall revenues of $631,824. Of these revenues, the district will generate approximately 332,000 through the levy of four mills on real property for general operating purposes. It will also generate approx. It will also generate $300,000 from the imposition of a capital charge assessed on a vinyl foot basis on properties adjacent to Brighton Boulevard for repayment of the $3 million in debt used to fund the capital enhancements along Brighton Boulevard. Jamie Lythgoe of Centro Inc, the manager for the district, is also here and available to answer questions. City staff has reviewed the 2017 Budget and Work Plan and recommends it for approval. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Michael Carrigan. We have one speaker tonight, Jamie Legault.
Speaker 5: Good evening counsel I'm name is Jamie let and the executive director of the Reno Denver General Improvement District. And I'm happy to answer any questions or concerns you might have.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You can have a seat. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? Seeing the public hearing from council bill 1066 is close, seeing no comments. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Oh. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. You got to commit. I do. I just because I've watched the whole formation in my time on council of this Rhino Guide. I just wanted to thank those properties that are part of that and for sort of taking the rhino by the horn. I had to. And I'm happy to support this. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. It's been moved a second. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 2: Black eye, Clark. All right, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. I Cashman. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I police close voting, announce the results.
Speaker 2: Lopez.
Speaker 0: Lopez. Now you can close the voting and announce the results. Lebanese 11 eyes. Resolution 166 has passed. Congratulations and congratulations to City Council for doing three public hearings at 12 minutes. The council has now reconvened. And Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 906 on the floor?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget, imposing Capital Charges and Maintenance Charges, approving a Mill Levy, and making appropriations for the 2017 Fiscal Year.
Approves the 2017 Work Plan and Budget of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-10-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11212016_16-0906
|
Speaker 0: Lopez. Now you can close the voting and announce the results. Lebanese 11 eyes. Resolution 166 has passed. Congratulations and congratulations to City Council for doing three public hearings at 12 minutes. The council has now reconvened. And Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 906 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 906 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. Has been moved and seconded. The combined public hearing of council bill 906907 is open. Speakers may comment on either one or both of the bills at the conclusion of the public hearing, Council will vote separately on each bill and council members. This is much similar to the affordable housing bill. When we had the two bills, we're going to vote on each of them just to let you know. So may we have the staff report? Kyle. Hey, good to see you. Good evening, council president and good evening. Members of council. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning Development. I'm going to give you the combined staff report for both bills this evening. The proposal here tonight is to develop a new conservation overlay district, which is intended to conserve the Eichler style style of California contemporary homes that were built by the developer HB Wolf and the Crescenta Park neighborhood in the 1950s. The proposal tonight would maintain the distinctive features of this building style, including low pitched rooflines, low profile, single storey building heights, and ensure that additions are compatible with the character of the neighborhood. There's a lot more pictures and information about the proposal in your packet, including an eight page application by the proponents who are residents of the neighborhood, as well as a red line draft showing an underline and strikethrough. All of the text that's proposed as part of this new zone district. In terms of the combined process for both bills, this really kicked off in March of last year when some residents met with me and CPD with a PRE-APPLICATION meeting. They continued discussions about the proposal among themselves and with the council members for about a year. And then we had a neighborhood meeting in March of 2016. At that time they expanded the area to which the zone district would apply. Originally, they intended to apply it to only one block and expanded it to the full neighborhood. There was a neighborhood meeting about that expanded area which staff in the Council district attended. And then in June of this year, Councilmember Paul Cashman formally initiated the amendments. He is the sponsor of both the text and the MAP Amendment. Having received that application from Councilman Cashman, the staff began drafting it. We remodeled and tested the proposal and met with the residents in the Council district about the draft. Together, we all attended the meeting of the Inner Neighborhood Cooperation Zoning and Planning Committee. Over the weekend. They submitted a letter which was uploaded to our systems this afternoon indicating that they voted by a vote of 24 in support and zero against with one abstention to support the proposal. After that meeting there was a public review draft and we provide a notice of that draft to all registered neighborhood organizations in the entire city and all council members. There was a planning board public hearing that was duly noticed in September of this year, at which your planning board unanimously recommended approval. Following Planning Board. This went forward to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. And then tonight's public hearing was properly noticed with additional sign postings and emails to all registered neighborhood organizations in the city and all city council members. In addition to the Ainsi Letter, we received 33 letters of support, all from residents or owners of property in the district and no letters in opposition to the proposal. So first, in terms of the text amendment, which your first bill does in order to create in the code, the zone district, the does the text amendment is designed to amend the provisions of the existing suburban single units, 6000 square foot minimum zone district. It does so by reducing the maximum building heights to one and a half storeys or 18 feet. It reduces the bulk planes that shape the buildings. It reduces the roof pitch. It sets a roof pitch where one does not yet currently exist. It expands the rear setback so that when folks do one storey additions, they're located in areas that are appropriate on the zone lot. So it reduces the rear setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. It prohibits rooftop and second story decks, and it also updates the rules of measurement in order to conform with the standards that were proposed by the neighborhood in the council office. This is an illustrative massing diagram of of how all of the standards work together. It is not an example of an actual house, but kind of shows the envelope that would be possible on a typical zone lot in showing the reduced height, reduced bulk planes and an increased rear setback . So the idea here is that when when folks do if folks decide to add on to existing houses in a way that expands the height, it's easier to do so towards the rear lot and then towards the front where it can be visible from the street. So that's what the text amendment would do in terms of adding into the code the c05 or conservation overlay number five to the Denver zoning code. And then with the second bill, you would map that new zone district to the geographic area where it's intended to be applied, which is, again, look it in the Crescenta Park neighborhood , which is in the Virginia Village Statistical Neighborhood and Council District six. It's comprised of 176 single use unit residences. Again today, they're zoned suburban single unit D. And then if adopted tonight, the bill would append the c05 to the end of that zoning designation. It's roughly bounded by Louisiana Avenue, Florida Avenue, Dalia Street and Fairfax Street and Bill and Filbert Way. So there are four criteria that apply. The first is unique to conservation overlays, and then the three relates to both text and map amendments. I'm going to combine both both analyzes here together. So first, a conservation overlay must meet one of the following criteria in the code. Either or both. The district should contain distinctive building features such as period of construction style, size, scale, detailing, mass color and material, and or the districts that contain distinctive site planning and natural features such as lot platting building, lot coverage, street layouts, setbacks, alleyways, sidewalks, creek beds, parks and gardens. So we think of this as kind of it has to meet either a criteria that relates to the vertical nature of development or the horizontal nature of development. In this case, we find that it's consistent with both. So the proposed overlay would create new standards that would be more consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood and the distinct building features that are found in this mid-century modern neighborhood. It also would reduce rear setbacks under the proposal in order to encourage a development that's more consistent with the character. And then there are three review criteria for legislative map and text amendments. First, that it be consistent with adopted plans. Second, that there be uniformity of district regulations. And third, that it further the public health, safety and welfare. So in the next slide, Comprehensive Plan 2000 recognizes that altering zoning standards to better recognize the existing character of the neighborhood is is consistent with the plan which calls for ensuring quality infill, for identifying community design and development issues , and targeting those issues with specific controls and ensuring that the zoning code reinforces quality design. We find that the proposal would, which is consistent with that plan. The other applicable plan is Blueprint Denver, adopted in 2002, which is the city's land use and transportation plan. Again, Blueprint Denver recognizes the need for overlays to address specific characters of an area. Specifically Blueprint Denver recognizes that this kind of zoning can apply where there are areas with similar objectives, but where either the base zoning varies, which doesn't apply here, or where additional standards are needed to reinforce a certain character. And that's and that is what applies in this neighborhood. Blueprint Denver's land use map calls for this area to be single family residential, and the proposal is consistent with the single family residential character. It's also an area of stability where the goal is to identify and maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. We find that the map and Text Amendment are both consistent with those recommendations from Blueprint Denver. We also find that it's consistent with the regulations would be uniform as applied throughout the district and by implementing your adopted plans that would further the public health, safety and welfare. And having reviewed it against all review criteria, we recommend approval. Thank you, Kyle. All right. Tonight, we have eight speakers. I'm going to call the first five up. And if you you know, we usually make this bench available for the speakers. So if you all could relocate, I would greatly appreciate it. Edward Melanson. John P Olsen. Oh, you know what? You guys still stay there. But Seth. Greg will be first. Donna Spinelli will be second. Sarah. Scharf. Scharf Maker, thank you so much. And Kate Adams. All right. Seth. Seth. Greg, you will be first. And you each each have 3 minutes, except Cate Adams has 6 minutes to read it.
Speaker 3: My name is Seth Gregg. I live at 1480 South Filbert Way. I'm actually reading for Angela merkel excuse me.
Speaker 8: Marissa Marasco, who lives at 1327 South.
Speaker 11: Fairfax.
Speaker 3: Street in Christ on a park. I'm an architect and I work and have worked on the design for renovations on four houses in the neighborhood. So I have intimate knowledge of the original design intent of the Eichler inspired homes. I also worked as a block captain to get signatures to support this overlay for our street. I love our neighborhood and I'm committed to helping it thrive and evolve for how we live today. And as an architect, I have a design to expansions that have added ample space all on the main level. So I know it can be done well without destroying the flow and original layout of these homes. Working in the building industry, I am typically not in favor of more restrictive zoning efforts. However, I think that this overlay provides a sensible middle ground for helping to preserve the.
Speaker 0: Distinctive.
Speaker 11: Mid-Century architecture character that we.
Speaker 3: Love. And even though this zoning change adds restrictions, it balances out.
Speaker 11: By giving more room for expansion.
Speaker 3: Further into the backyards. As for the very small percentage who don't agree with this overlay, I think it's an.
Speaker 11: Important factor to consider is.
Speaker 8: That the value of the.
Speaker 3: Homes continue to increase even more.
Speaker 8: Dramatically than in other.
Speaker 11: Denver neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: A house just sold on our street for the top price ever in our neighborhood for $780,000. And this is for a house under 2000 square feet. The House does not have a pop up. And the expansion is all on the ground level. I think that speaks to how much people value the design and character of these homes and how important it is for the future sustainability of our neighborhood.
Speaker 8: As some of you might know, on the West Coast.
Speaker 3: There are authentic midcentury homes everywhere. But for Denver, there are only a few small pockets. Christina Park is a unique gem of a neighborhood and I think as shown with the overwhelming.
Speaker 11: Support of the petition. In this case, there's a very strong reason to implement the zoning overlay. Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Grech. You can have a seat. Donna Spinelli. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm Donna Spinelli, and.
Speaker 7: I live at 1470 South Filbert Way.
Speaker 2: I bought my house in crisis a park in.
Speaker 7: 2011 when I was a student of historic preservation.
Speaker 2: At the University of Colorado School of Architecture. And I was really attracted to the.
Speaker 7: Look and feel of the.
Speaker 2: Homes and just the fact.
Speaker 7: That they were historic.
Speaker 2: But also modern, which is a really, really unique aspect of the architecture. I'm also a realtor. I have this overachievement problem, and I've done a study of the property values, of course, on a park, and they are easily 20 to 30% higher than the streets immediately adjacent. Exact same square footage, same upgrades, etc.. So it's very clear that the design and the cohesion of the design is really contributing to the value, and that speaks to the personal property rights of the owners. So I believe that actually adopting this would enhance the personal property rights of the owners. And as a conservative, I think that's quite a statement. So I really hope that you will decide to adopt this. I think it has incredible support throughout the entire neighborhood. I've never seen anywhere. 90% of people for 89.6, whatever it was, percent of.
Speaker 7: The residents approve.
Speaker 2: Anything. And I have also served on the planning and zoning commission in Eagle, and it's frequently we frequently had to adopt much more controversial kinds of motions or zoning changes because they would, you know.
Speaker 7: Benefit the greater good. But, you know.
Speaker 12: They definitely were going to have a downside.
Speaker 7: To to, you know, a fairly large segment of the people that they were going.
Speaker 2: To affect. But that's not the case with this one. This one is a win win for everyone because. And it has the support of the neighborhood. So thank you very much for listening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Spinelli. Sarah Shah from. Okay.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. My name is Sarah Shaffer, N.A. and I live at 1302 South Edison Way. Of course, South Edison was the first street across on a park. And I will be speaking for John Steel. John still lives at 1473 South Eudora. I've lived in the Christina Park neighborhood for 28 years. I have always appreciated and enjoyed the opening and inviting style of these California contemporary style homes. The post and beam construction lends itself to an open and inviting atmosphere that encourages families to enjoy both the freedom of an open floor, open plan with an easy flow between the coziness of our ranch style, single level floorplans and the connection to the outdoors via our directly connected patios and backyards. As a community, we love the understated simplicity of the shallow, angled lines that define our roofs and consistency of the shapes of our homes. But at the same time appreciate the incredible variety of organic appearances brought about by the breadth of landscaping that our neighborhoods have. Our neighbors have created in their yards from traditional grasses and trees to wonderful zero escapes. An act that accent our southwestern locale. It is really important to those of us who live here to maintain this style and sense of continuity while allowing our neighbors to express their individual taste and perspective. By the way, the landscape, their yard and decorate both the outside and the inside of their homes. We marvel at the variety and richness with which our neighbors choose to reconfigure and decorate what is essentially a single floor plan for almost all the homes in our neighborhood. We appreciate the consistent look of our neighborhood, and I think I'm correct in saying the universal response to renovations that have popped the top or put a garage at the front of the home, that makes the home look more like something from the cookie cutter suburbs at the edges of our metropolitan area and blocks the connected as we are. The connectedness we all want to encourage is that this is not on a park, hence this effort on the part of our whole neighborhood to update our zoning designation to limit the types of renovations that can be done in on a park to those that are in harmony with the style, character and ambiance flows from the largely integral set of homes. That is Christina Park. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, Kate Adams. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Kate Adams and I have lived at 1392 South Edison Way for 41 years, and I'm speaking in support of both of the bills. My desire for an overlay district for Crescenta Park began with historic Denver at the Virginia Village Library in the fall of 2013. When we began to pursue it in earnest in early 2015, I experienced what it is like to be part of a committed and loving community for the almost two years it has taken us to get here. I call ours an organic process to preserve the architectural style of the homes in Christiana Park because we didn't find the guidebook for overlays. Thankfully there is Kyle Dalton of Community Planning and Development. He has answered many questions, sometimes more than once, and attended numerous meetings. Kyle, I believe this is the last time you have to explain the details of the of park overlay. I cannot thank you enough for your extensive knowledge of both the zoning code and the process to change it and the patient guidance you provided us. Thank you. When I read Tom Newell's book recounting the Hilltop Conservation Overlay and learned they hired attorneys and marketing consultants. I knew we couldn't do that because we had no money. What I found out was we had homeowners willing to give their time, talent and energy to a labor of love. Both new and old relationships have formed in Chris Santa part that allowed us to complete gathering signatures for support from over 89% of the owners. The map in your packet illustrates the level of support we have to preserve the architectural integrity of the 176 homes. My heartfelt thanks goes out to all the volunteers and neighbors who have helped get us here tonight. And I'd like to acknowledge the 13 block representatives from Dahlia, Eudora, Elm, Fairfax and Philbert and several are here tonight . Also Angela Morasco for his architectural knowledge, Kirk Rainey for his graphics design for the proposal, Tom Tore Grove for his photography, and all those who showed up in support at planning board and here tonight. And the real skunkworks was has been John DAVIDOVICH Don. Karen Flanagan. And Mouse. Sarah and myself, who persevered for almost two years. The winemakers may have noticed we have stopped our regular meetings. Cheers to you and our motion of support from Iron Caesar up to a unanimous planning board in our favor, including the three self-identified property rights members, and to getting us here before council tonight. Thank you for your unique contributions and dedicating dedication through the process which has had both its challenging as well as rewarding moments. Thanks also to Councilman Cashman from our first meeting. He got it that Crescenta Park is something worth preserving. I thought he would take us forward with 80%, but I guess he wanted to make sure we would be successful. I sure hope 90% is convincing and I hope I ask for your vote to preserve Chris Hannah Park with Conservation Overlay five. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Adams. Okay, we have our last four speakers. Edward Melanson.
Speaker 10: My name is Edwin Melanson and I reside at 1381 South Edison Way. And I'm reading on behalf to my neighbor Jean Sawyer, who's from 1388 South Edison Way, who cannot be here this evening. Good evening, council members. My name is Jean Sawyer and I reside at 1388 South Edison Way Denver. While I could not attend this evening's meeting in person, I wanted to add my comments to the Council in support of the Crescenta Park Conservation Overlay District. My wife Jean and I moved to Denver five years ago and purchased at home and in the park, selecting the neighborhood for its unique and cohesive.
Speaker 0: Century architectural.
Speaker 10: Style. Shortly after moving into our home, we were blessed with two children and quickly realized that we would have.
Speaker 0: To either abandon the home we love or expand it to accommodate our.
Speaker 10: Needs. We chose the latter, consulting with multiple architects as well as our neighbors to assure we arrived at responsible design that met our needs without altering the original feel of the neighborhood. While it would have been surely cheaper and easier for us to simply add structure within the existing zoning rules, we purposely navigated several rounds in planning as well as the zoning variance process because we wanted our home to respect the community. It is part of in our short time in Denver, Jane and I have witnessed the tremendous growing growth, growth going on around us and the ills that come with the construction boom. Many neighborhoods are losing their original character with the introduction of non-conforming architectural.
Speaker 3: Styles.
Speaker 0: And grossly oversize structures. While I am a.
Speaker 10: Proponent of property rights, I feel that responsible design is being overlooked in many neighborhoods forever altering the landscape of Denver. I would appeal to the council to adopt the Christina Park Conservation Overlay District to help our community. Preserve the homes we cherish with their distinctive style. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. John Paulson.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Members of City Council. My name is John Olsen. I am the director of preservation programs at Historic Denver on behalf of historic Denver's Board of Trustees and my colleague Beck, a dear Shaw who has spent the most time in our office on this issue, I am speaking in support of the proposed conservation overlay for Christina Park. Historic Denver first became involved with Christina Park in the summer of 2013 at an informal garden party. It was revealed to our staff that the neighbors of Christina Park were truly passionate about their homes as an enclave of midcentury modern design. In the heart of Denver, many residents moved into the neighborhood expressly for the love of its architecture, to celebrate the unique design of these homes and begin the process of providing tools for their conservation. Historic Denver applied for and received a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to create a pattern and design book. This, coupled with an investment book from both historic Denver and a match from Carson, a park neighbors allowed us to hire the Center for Preservation Research at the University of Colorado, Denver's Architecture School, to help author that publication. This book highlighted the distinct architectural features that make Christina Park unique to Denver and offered suggestions for homeowners looking to expand their homes while still honoring the architectural design in the original buildings. Now it is here. I have it here in print form, but it's also available on our website at Historic Denver North and it is for free. The proposed conservation overlay before you tonight is an extension of principles outlined in the pattern of design idea book and it protects many of the architectural features highlighted within this overlay came about due to hard work and countless hours on the part of the Christina Park residents who wish to honor and protect the features that make their neighborhood unique with the overwhelming support of Cassandra Park neighbors, this conservation overlay is truly a community driven effort. The City of Denver planning staff and notably Kyle Dalton, were also vital in turning elements from the pattern book and neighborhood concert conversations into a zoning language that would protect the neighborhood's important features. The conservation overlay is an important tool for the preservation and vitalization of Denver's neighborhoods. Together, our communities are empowered to make thoughtful choices about their future. Our conservation overlay takes time, it takes investment, and it takes dedication. This one started almost three years ago, but the result is community invested in both its neighborhood character and in each other. Historic Denver applauds the neighborhoods neighbors of Christina Park for their hard work, and we'd like to thank the community planning and development staff for helping us and them achieve their goal and protecting the mid-century modern character of Cassandra Park. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Olson. Pamela Walsh. And there are going to be two more speakers if you guys could go to your seats in America. Christine Richard's up as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Pamela Walsh and I'm here championing champion championing this overlay district tonight on behalf of myself and my husband, Gerry Walsh. We live at 1316 Elm Street, and I'm here to ask for your support tonight to approve the district that's supported by 90% of our neighbors. We're new to the area having relocated here from the San Francisco Bay Area seven months ago. And as a native Californian, I've always loved the the Eichler style that inspired these homes. And although California has some stellar examples of this architecture, I haven't seen a neighborhood as well-preserved and cozy and as cohesive as what we were delighted to find in Christina Park when my husband and I were searching for a home. We've viewed several other midcentury modern in Denver, but we specifically chose Christina Park for this reason. And since living here, I've only grown more enamored with Christina Park, at least in part due to the enthusiasm and the appreciation of it by our neighbors . I've never lived anywhere before where the first thing that a new neighbor says to me is, Don't you love our house? Don't you love our homes? This shared love of the mid-century modern style of Christina Park is a uniting factor among its residents, and many are eager to show off how they've decorated or how they've lovingly preserved or sensitively evolved its original architecture or design elements. This sort of I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Attitude among the homeowners has inspired me to lead a cross on a park home tour this spring or summer in partnership with fellow Speaker Christine Richards and in support of historic Denver. And in addition to the home tours, we plan to have lectures and discussions about mid-century modern style and preservation, as well as a festival featuring local resources and businesses. This leads me to my passionate endorsement for the architectural overlay. We've already seen a few examples in our neighborhood where modifications have led to the disruption of visual continuity or intrusion of privacy. And while I am also a great supporter of property rights, I believe the overlay is sufficiently reasonable and lenient to allow reasonable modifications. Further, the course on a park pattern book provides a fantastic resource to homeowners committed to doing modifications in a way that is still sensitive to the original architecture. This is an opportunity to truly put grass on a course, on a park, on the map alongside other wonderful and well-known neighborhoods in the city. So finally, I want to reiterate my love, of course, on a park and the passion I've experienced from our neighbors that who take such pride in our neighborhood. When people ask me, Don't you love your home? I want to say yes, but I love my neighborhood and I ask for your support today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Walsh. Lastly, we have Christine Richards.
Speaker 5: All right. Good evening.
Speaker 2: My name is Christine Richards.
Speaker 5: And I live at 1480 South Filbert Way. And I'm speaking in support of both of the bills. Now I'm listed as one of the owners of a 1480 South Filbert Way. But I really like to think that this home belongs to Mary Roland. Mary lived in and loved 1480 South Filbert Way for over 50 years, from 1959 until 2010, when she passed away at the age of 96. And she kept the home all original. And when I say all original, I mean everything down to the mint, green bathroom and plastic tiles. Well, I fell in love with the house, bathroom and all because it was cool and different and unlike anything I had seen in Denver. And I wrote a passionate letter to Mary's family when they put the home up for sale. And I guess my passion came through because we apparently beat out developers with all cash offers for the home. Now, as silly as it may sound for something from the 1950s, I love the history of this home and its style, and I feel like a protector of Mary's legacy. And I've kept nearly everything in the home original. But as I lived in Chris on a park, I realized it wasn't just about my one home, but the entire neighborhood that I loved post-World War Two neighborhoods. They aren't as much about the individual homes as the rhythm of the neighborhood and the fabric of the neighborhood. And keeping that integrity is is so critical if we want to be able to preserve this part of Denver's history. So I was thrilled to be a part of the conservation overlay district. But as I dove in, you know, I wondered what other neighbors supported. We have some rentals. You know, we have some long time homeowners there. And I was amazed to find that both, you know, long time home owners and and people who were landlords, you know, supported it, people who rented out these homes, they didn't want to let go of these homes. They wanted to hold on to them. Long time homeowners were willing to admit that. Yes, the thing that they bought that was relatively new. Now it's something that's worth preserving. So, you know, I think that it's it's important. You know, we have an opportunity here to not just protect Mary's home, but also an incredible neighborhood. That's a gem for those who bought into the neighborhood from the beginning, those who are living there today. And for, you know, future residents who I hope will delight in as much about discovering this enclave in Denver as as I did. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Richards. This concludes our speakers questions by members of Council on. And I want to be clear, this is on Council Bill 906 and nine or seven. Seeing no questions. The council hearing is closed. Four counts. Bonanno, S.A. seven. Comments by members of Council.
Speaker 9: Councilman Cashman Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. I am truly honored to bring forward this map and text amendment to create C0 Dash five, a conservation overlay for the Christina Park neighborhood. As it's been said, it's an enclave within the Virginia Village community from Delta to Fairfax, between Louisiana and Florida. In the interest of full disclosure, I live in Virginia Village. However, I live seven houses north of Christiana Park. So when people say, Oh, you live in that cool neighborhood with those contemporary California? No, no, I live seven houses north and it's kind of plain Mandeville. Shingle houses. I love my neighborhood. I love my block because Santa Park is definitely something very, very special. Conservation overlays for those who are not familiar a differ significantly from historic designation. A historic designation identifies particular properties that are so historically relevant that they should be maintained. A conservation overlay, on the other hand, reflects a community's desire that the unique character of the community should be preserved. Our home can be demolished. A home can be added on. But the character, the items that Kyle Dalton and his wonderful crew, along with the neighbors, have labored so hard to to create must be maintained. The while there have been a couple of pop tops in the neighborhood disrupting the consistency of the community, the overall character has been enhanced, as has been said, by years of people just loving these homes. You need to drive through crash on a park. It's not just that the homes are so cool. The streets themselves break the right angle grid of the city and have a more curvilinear approach. The overlay permits additions that can create substantial additional space for those who feel more square footage is necessary as long as certain references to existing character maintained. There is no requirement about materials, no design review required passive adhering to the zoning and normal permitting requirements that you'd need if you were going to do any kind of renovation on your home. You know, it's kind of funny. I love the speakers on Councilman Cashman did this and thank you, Councilman Cashman, for doing that. Councilman Cashman opened the door so an army of foot soldiers could go out and bust their butts for for a couple of years talking to their neighbors and making their case. And as has been brought up and that I need to it's not true. I never required 90%. I did drag Geelong at 88, but I felt like I felt like the football coach at halftime that that urging his tired players to dig in deep. You got some more left in. And I am absolutely stunned. At the last I heard, it was 89.4% approval. We still in that neighborhood, Kate? 89.6. There you go. Someone flipped. Way to go. And that's astounding. This this is truly a grassroots effort. I couldn't be more proud. Kate is not the only one. As she said, her sidekicks, Jon Davidovich and Karen Flanagan. And the first time I heard the word Sarah in public now, Schaaf Nager, they worked hard along with their their block captains. I'm just proud to be a small part of this and urge my colleagues to support this, these ordinances.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Castro and Councilman New.
Speaker 13: Yes, I'm I'm pleased to support these ordinances. And I just want to congratulate the neighbors on at a time when the city's driving for density. And you're making so many changes in our city to accommodate so many people coming into our city, it's wonderful to see a whole group effort to preserve their community, preserve their neighborhood in the style of the neighborhood. So it's very refreshing in a graduate you for the one also thank Karl Dot and his CPD you know it working together with the neighborhood on a whole a concept that makes sense for a neighborhood to preserve his character. And and so that's the way the city should be working with its citizens to preserve those things that are important to the citizens. Thank you very much. And I look forward to supporting this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I am excited to support this tonight, and I want to congratulate the neighbors. This is really an impressive display, I think 90% I can't even get 90% of the people in my family of four to agree that ice cream is a good thing because my daughter won't sign on. And I think you've beat all of the toothpaste companies by having who only have three out of four dentist to recommend their toothpaste. So I just, I, I couldn't go by without saying 90% is really staggering. I getting 90% of people in your neighborhood to agree on anything. I never name something that's big, so congratulations and. Wow.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. 90%. That's that's dictator territory. I did. Just along those lines, I wanted to thank, sir for using the words zero escape, not zero escape. That one is a pet peeve of mine and Ed Melanson for your comments. I think there was a lot of really great comments, but but sort of understanding the way you articulated that balance of some of the property rights and desires of the community and have you how you strike, how there's merit in doing taking these actions. I think everybody here to get 90% recognizes the real value of these structures in their community. And so I applaud you all for doing the work that you've done and a volunteer effort. And it's amazing. Thanks. Happy to support this. Great. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. See no other comments? I'll just say I were just wrapping up an overlay district and at 30th and Blake Stationery in Reno. And I've been working with the community around that and it's been an eight month process. And it was it was very hard at first, but it's going really well and did overlay district in Curtis Park as well. And so these community process issues around, you know, property rights and design standards are tough, but when done properly in the right process, I think we can come out with a good conclusion. So well done on the 90%. But can I tell you what I love most about tonight is your love for the neighborhood. Your love for the neighborhood came out and I'm on my iPad. Like, where is this place? I've got to go there. So thank you. I'll be going there this week, so I really appreciate it. Okay. Members of council, we are voting on nine or 6/1. So. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Roger Cashman.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Lopez.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 2: New Ortega Sussman. Hi. Black Clerk. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I police close voting, announce the results. Lebanese 11 Eyes Council Bill 906 passes now. Madam Secretary, can you put 907 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, enacting the Krisana Park Conservation Overlay District, CO-5.
Approves text amendment #10 to create the Krisana Park Conservation Overlay District CO-5 (preserving the distinctive mid-century modern architecture), in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-11-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11212016_16-0907
|
Speaker 0: I police close voting, announce the results. Lebanese 11 Eyes Council Bill 906 passes now. Madam Secretary, can you put 907 on the floor?
Speaker 7: I think you're wanting.
Speaker 0: Yes, madam. You know, Councilwoman. Go ahead. Put them on the floor.
Speaker 7: I got you, Mr. President. I move. The Council. Will 907 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in. Second. It comes for members of council. I don't think we have any comments. Madam Secretary, you recall.
Speaker 3: CASHMAN Hi.
Speaker 2: Lopez All right. New Ortega Assessment. Black Eye. Clark Espinosa.
Speaker 3: FLYNN Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 Ice.
Speaker 0: 11 ICE counts. About 907 has passed. Congratulations to the Arizona. All right. So now we are starting comfortable 1021 and I want to before we start this, I just want to make a couple comments. I apologize because at the last minute we had to switch and put the general improvement districts first.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for multiple properties including the area generally bounded on the north by Louisiana Avenue from South Dahlia Street to South Fairfax Avenue; on the east, including the properties on the east side of South Fairfax Street and South Filbert Way from Louisiana Avenue to Florida Avenue; on the south by Florida Avenue from South Filbert Way to South Dahlia Street; and on the west by South Dahlia Street from Florida Avenue to Louisiana Avenue, excluding the southwest parcel.
Rezones the Krisana Park neighborhood from S-SU-D to S-SU-D CO-5 (preserving the distinctive mid-century modern architecture), adding the Krisana Park Conservation Overlay District in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-11-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11072016_16-1089
|
Speaker 0: Communications. Do we have any communications?
Speaker 2: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: We have two proclamations this evening. Councilman Hernan, will you please read Proclamation 1089?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I'm excited to read Proclamation 1089 honoring the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its contribution to building the capacity of our beloved Denver Public Library. Whereas the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has established itself as a 21st century Andrew Carnegie for public libraries and the people and communities they serve. And. WHEREAS, The Gates Foundation was a pioneer in understanding the risk of the digital divide and the importance of digital inclusion. And. Whereas, The Gates Foundation challenged public libraries to become technology leaders and provided millions of dollars to help libraries become go to resources and trusted guides in an increasingly digital world. And. Whereas, The Gates Foundation provided a significant investment to develop EDGE, a national technology benchmarking system created to ensure that public libraries have the right technology to meet today's needs and the promise of tomorrow. And. Whereas, with its commitment to ensuring that all people have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life, the Gates Foundation has had a profound impact in communities across the country. And. WHEREAS, the work of the Gates Foundation has enhanced the capacity, value and power of public libraries as vital community assets. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Public Library and the residents of Denver have benefited from the vision, commitment and support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation . Now, therefore, the April claim by the Council, the city and county of Denver, Section one, that the Council recognizes and appreciates the importance of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for its groundbreaking work in support of public libraries and the role of Denver Public Library as an essential community resource to support community goals and meet the diverse educational needs of our residents from birth through senior years and ensure equal access to the opportunities of the 21st century. Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ernie, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 1089 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. And second, it comments by members of Council Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I, I cannot express in words how important libraries were important to me when I was growing up as a kid. And my favorite book, or I should say my favorite series was the Hardy Boy series. And I remember reading all of those. And during the summer I would read a number of books and I would get pizzas from that, from Pizza Hut back in Kansas City. And it's interesting now, as we become more technology technologically savvy, there's this belief that certain institutions are no longer needed. And sometimes people think that about libraries. I believe that our libraries are more value than are more important than than they've ever been because there is a very real and it was mentioned in this proclamation digital divide or that there's a particular segment of the community that don't have the access to technology that a lot of people just literally take for granted. And that gap that stop gap, for one, is our libraries, for our communities of lower income, for our seniors that people don't think about the way they connected to the world. And their libraries are also community resources where people come for classes, resume building, job search, job searches. Our libraries are more important than ever. And you see that when you think about great programs that we do Summer of Reading, where Northeast Denver always wins, by the way. And we also have the great success on the West Side, I'm sure, Councilman Lopez, and talk about the Corky Gonzales Library and how successful it has been for that community that was built a couple of years ago and has been a huge success. So it's vital that we continue to make sure that our our libraries, our technology staffs and have a great asset to support our community. We have a great library in Montebello. They just opened up their idea lab for young people to come and let their imaginations run wild. And our libraries are that key, our key place to do that. So I'm thankful for the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation for recognizing that. I applaud Denver Public Library for all the work that it does to make sure all of our residents have access to it and the great work that they do each and every day. So I appreciate my colleagues to support this. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Seeing no other comments, madam secretary.
Speaker 2: Raquel Herndon, i. Cashman's I can eat. Lopez. All right, new Ortega. SUSSMAN Black. Clark Hi. Espinosa Hi. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: Lights flashing 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes proclamation 1089 has passed, has been dubbed it Councilman Herndon. Is there anyone you want to bring up?
Speaker 1: We do. Our esteemed librarian, I understand, is traveling, but we do have other members from Denver Public Library that would love to come forward and accept this proclamation.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Members of City Council, we really do appreciate the proclamation as a way that we can express to the Gates Foundation how much we've appreciated the investment that they've made in the technology infrastructure of the Denver Public Library. For literally decades now, they have been investing across the city or across the country and in our city to make sure that we have been able to bridge the digital divide as much as possible. In a budget meeting we just had earlier this month, we talked about what we still have some of those Gates funds left and we're using them to purchase mobile hotspots that are checked out of all by anybody with a library card can come get on the hold list. They're very popular and check one out and take it home so that they can use that technology from the convenience of their own home and not be limited by library facilities and library hours. Last check we had 300 people waiting on the hold list for the hundreds of library hotspots we have now. And so we're going to be buying hundreds more with that money before the end of the year. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And thank you, Councilman Herndon. All right, Councilwoman Black, will you please read Proclamation 1094?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its contribution to building the capacity of the Denver Public Library.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11072016_16-1059
|
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This is an appointment to the Board of Ethics. The City Council makes several appointments to the board, as does the mayor's office. And this is the board that interprets the code of ethics. We don't often have folks that we appoint to boards and commissions present in the chambers, but we do tonight. So I just wanted to acknowledge the presidents of our appointee, Ms.. Julia Jaquez, who's here in the audience today. And for the purposes of my council colleagues, I wanted to just let you know that we were not clear about this in committee, but this appointment is to fill the remaining portion of the term that was scheduled for Brian Spano, our former appointee who resigned. And so this appointment will be to finish that term through May of 2017. And to clarify that, since that was New Science Committee. And with that, I just want to thank Ms.. Jaquez and as this is part of the consent agenda, to encourage us all to be supportive, but to thank her for her time and service.
Speaker 0: Thank you and welcome to City Council Chambers. And for those in the public council mechanics over the Finance and Governance Committee, which the Ethics Board reports to. And so that is why she is leading that. Okay. Thank you.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance appointing Julia C. Yeckes to serve as a member of the Board of Ethics.
Appoints Julia C. Yeckes to fill a vacated term on the Board of Ethics beginning immediately and ending 4-20-17. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-1-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11072016_16-1095
|
Speaker 0: Thank you and welcome to City Council Chambers. And for those in the public council mechanics over the Finance and Governance Committee, which the Ethics Board reports to. And so that is why she is leading that. Okay. Thank you. I'll be calling out Council Bill 1095 just just for a quick comment. This amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning the city council's weekly meeting schedule and observance of holidays is something that we've been trying to address for the six years I've been here and finally doing with this council until 25, when the charter was revised, council met 52 times. The 25 charter amendment approved by Denver voters allow council to determine the council's schedule, including weeks off in observance of holidays. Currently, council does not meet four times per year, but it is required to meet the day after Christmas this year and next. This bill simply changes the ordinance so the council does not meet between December 24th and New Year's to allow the members to spend this week with their families. And if you have attended a council meeting, it has been sparse attendance and we wouldn't want you all to go through that either. So when this legislation is adopted overall mean there will not be a regularly scheduled meeting for council on Monday, December 26, 2016. This last regular scheduled meeting before Council on the holidays and the end of the year will be Monday, December 19th. The first meeting in 2017 will be on Monday, January 2nd. Okay, Madam Secretary, can we please pull up Council Bill 898. Let's see here. Councilman, can each honorable fund consider, as you've called out, 1898, would you like to do with it?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Section 13-2, D.R.M.C. concerning the city council’s weekly meeting schedule and observance of holidays.
Revises the Denver Revised Municipal Code to allow Council not to meet between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. This bill was approved for filing by Council President Brooks.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11072016_16-0898
|
Speaker 0: The first meeting in 2017 will be on Monday, January 2nd. Okay, Madam Secretary, can we please pull up Council Bill 898. Let's see here. Councilman, can each honorable fund consider, as you've called out, 1898, would you like to do with it?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be offering an amendment to delete reference to the condemnation of property currently owned by the Denver Public Schools. Negotiations for acquisition of the DPS property are ongoing.
Speaker 0: That's right. Councilman Lopez report. Please put 898 on the floor.
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President, I move that counts. 898 of 2016 be placed upon final consideration. Do pass.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman, can each your motion to amend?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 898 be amended in the following particulars on page two line 47 after the period ad colon. Lions 23 through 47 constitute the deepest parcel on page three, line 22 after the comma ad, but not the DPS parcel.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved in second and comments by members of council. Because when Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just want to ask a question. So this is to deal with the actual giving giving authority for them to proceed with the acquisition. Correct. Kelly or someone?
Speaker 0: Yes. Yeah, I think I think we have real estate.
Speaker 6: So typically the deal is already worked out before they're brought before us. I don't know if the only sticking point was the reference to condemnation, but if that is not the only sticking point, why are we moving this forward before the deal's been pretty much worked out?
Speaker 4: Hi, Councilwoman. I'm Jen Wellborn with the city attorney's office. This is actually consistent with the way we've done big project acquisitions, which is that we have brought forward a bill to you all to authorize by negotiation or condemnation any of the any of the parcels required for that project. My office went back and looked, I think when the PDP ordinance came before you all, and I think it's been since about 2008 and at least eight different ordinances where we've done this for where we have multiple parcel assemblages for a four road project or in this case for National Western, where we have done an ordinance that allows us to acquire any of the parcels that are laid out in the legal description or or in this case within a boundary. And we did that for National Western in December of 2015. There were two parcels inadvertently left off. It's because they're east of Brighton and the surveyors just missed it. We are. The purpose of this is just to add those parcels in the same way that we have added all of the parcels and treat them consistently with the way we've treated every other parcel in this project and frankly, every other assemblage project that we've worked on in the last many years. So in this case, where when you have when you have one off acquisitions for a specific purpose, that where you're only buying one parcel in many cases, that's that's exactly the case, Councilwoman, where we bring an ordinance to you and it has the actual contract in it in this case with these kinds of assemblages. That's not what we've done for the past eight or ten years.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 4: Does that make sense?
Speaker 0: Does that answer your question, Council?
Speaker 6: It does.
Speaker 0: Okay. Seeing no other comments or questions, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Recall can each by Lopez write new Ortega assessment by Black Clerk. All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn, i.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Katherine.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I call Madam Speaker, close voting. Announce the results. 3913 eyes. Constable 898 has been amended. Councilman Lopez, please. We need a motion to pass as amended now.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I move that council bill 898 series of 2016 be moved and be passed on final, final consideration as amended.
Speaker 0: Okay. It has been moved in second. It comes from members of council. It comes from our take as this from the prior.
Speaker 6: It was just hasn't gone away.
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Can each I. LOPEZ All right. New ORTEGA High Assessment by Black. Clark by Espinosa.
Speaker 3: FLYNN Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore I Herndon. I Cashman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Please close the voting and ask for results. 3913 Eyes Council Bill 898 has passed as amended. Okay, just want to make sure looking down the road, make sure there are no other items that need to be called out. We're ready for the block votes. All other bills for introduction are order published. We are now ready. So council members, please remember that this is a consent block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate votes. Guzman Lopez, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: We put them both at the same time.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: The read through. That's what we did last week.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And it's easy if you do it from the screen.
Speaker 3: All right. I motion to approve the consent agenda. So the motion would be.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: No, do I. Do I run through all those resolutions and bills? Yep. Just all of them at once. Yep. All right. Back in my day, we brought it on. Oh, I'm just kidding. All right, Mr. President. Okay. I move that. Our series of 2016, the following resolutions 1000 982 998, 1000 to 8, 79, 33, nine, 34, nine, 92 and 93, 96, 99, 1003. And the following bills for consideration to series at 2016 979 nine 8947 nine 5959 961 974, nine, 75 and 85 831 972 973. And 1978 be released upon. Of do pass in block.
Speaker 0: Okay. Madam Secretary, I think he got all of them. Yes. Would you concur? Okay, great. Rook for.
Speaker 2: Black Eye Clerk.
Speaker 3: By.
Speaker 2: Vanessa Flynn I. Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Catherine Kennedy I. Lopez I knew Ortega i susman i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I 3939 resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. Council is scheduled to sit as the quasi Judicial Board of Equalization to consider reduction of total cost assessments for the one local maintenance district.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to such property, as needed for the National Western Center Project.
Adds two land parcels inadvertently omitted from the legal description in the Land Acquisition Ordinance passed in December 2015, granting authority to acquire them as needed for the National Western Center redevelopment in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-7-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-4-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10312016_16-0898
|
Speaker 2: I have a comment by Councilwoman Cranitch each. 898 I'm sorry, that's a bill for final consideration and then under pending, I have no bills. Is that correct? All right, Madam Secretary, can you pull up Council Bill 898. And Council mechanics. Would you like to this?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. It is my hope that we can put this on the floor, and I will once again be offering a motion to postpone final consideration to November 7th. The mayor's office wanted a little extra time to meet with some of the landowners involved in this bill, and we delayed it last week. But they would like a little more time. So I'm going to ask for another postponement to Monday, November 7th, once we put this on the floor.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Our table, will you put Council Bill 898 on the floor?
Speaker 1: I would be happy to. Do we believe that that's going to give adequate time?
Speaker 4: I would have to defer. Gary, can you answer whether or not that's going to be an adequate amount of time? Gaby Krieger Mayor's office. I understand that that would be enough time and that I think that there might be a need to amend it further on the floor next week, but not to postpone it and then would allow you guys to vote on it next week.
Speaker 1: Great. Mr. President, I move that council bill 898 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. That's right, Councilwoman. Finish your motion to postpone.
Speaker 4: I move that final consideration of Council Bill 898 be postponed to Monday, November seven, 2016.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Can each.
Speaker 6: Lopez I.
Speaker 5: Knew. Ortega Assessment.
Speaker 4: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Clark All right. Espinosa I. Gilmore, I. Herndon. Cashman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi. Close the voting, announce results.
Speaker 5: See Black. Espinosa. Espinosa's.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Oh, sorry. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Choice.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes Council Bill 898 has been postponed. All right, let's see. Let me make sure we have everything. Okay. We're ready for the black votes. All other bills for introduction has been ordered. Publish council members. Please remember this is a council consent or block vote and you will need to vote by otherwise. This is your last time to call out an item for a separate vote. Council Member Tagle, will you please read the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: I would be happy to, but may I make just a very brief comment? I didn't call the bill out on Council Bill 985.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: This is a bill that the auditor's office is bringing forward and is a change to the prevailing wage ordinance. And I just want to thank him for his work in reaching out and including both industry partners as well as labor unions. And the fact that all sides agreed and, you know, supported this bill moving forward. I just want to say thanks for for that work that was done on this particular ordinance that we're not going to call out and discuss tonight.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thanks for being here. Mr..
Speaker 1: I move that the following resolutions be ordered published in a block vote resolution 955 956 957 958 nine 6962 963 965 966 968 nine. 7976 1061. 928. 964. 977. And 1969.
Speaker 2: Again area was. Yes. Yeah. Okay. You look like you missed the bills on final consideration as well.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we're doing them all together. All right, so including. So those were the resolutions. Yeah. So we're including the bills for introduction, which is 979.
Speaker 2: On a note, all the introductions have been ordered published, so we just need the bills on.
Speaker 1: Final and final. Okay. I'm sorry that we get to that. It's easy for me to do it on here. All right. So the following bills also in a bloc vote on final are. 876 877, eight, 78, 79, eight, 88, 81, eight, 86, eight, 87 excuse me eight, 88, 88, 89, eight, 98, 91, eight, 92, eight, 93. Excuse me. 894. Eight, 95. Eight, 96. 936 and 936, all in a blog post.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Oracle Black Eye. Clarke Espinosa Gilmore I Herndon Cashman.
Speaker 6: I can.
Speaker 5: Eat Lopez. All right. New Ortega. I Sussman. All right, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please close voting now.
Speaker 5: Results Total vice to advise.
Speaker 2: The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed on final consideration to pass since there are no public hearings and if there are no objections from members of council, we will not take a recess this evening on Monday, November 7th.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to such property, as needed for the National Western Center Project.
Adds two land parcels inadvertently omitted from the legal description in the Land Acquisition Ordinance passed in December 2015, granting authority to acquire them as needed for the National Western Center redevelopment in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-7-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-4-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10242016_16-1008
|
Speaker 1: The delegation will be returning on October 27. Straight. See no other announcements. Presentations. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations?
Speaker 4: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Communications. Madam Secretary, do we have any communications?
Speaker 4: Yes. Dear Counsel. President. In keeping with the provisions of Section 20, Dash 93 of the Denver revised Mr. Code, DRC, I'm hereby notifying you the Department of Finance's intent to issue airport system revenue bonds series 2016 and Series 2016 B for and on behalf of his Department of Aviation, an amount not to exceed 308.5 million and 115 million respectively, for the purpose of refunding various series of existing airport bonds. The series 2016 bonds will be issued as fixed rate senior lien obligations with final maturity of 2032 series 2016 bonds will be issued as floating rate notes with a final maturity date of 2031. Neither the series 2016 or 2016 B bonds will exceed the original term of the bonds being refunded. City has, by ordinance designated the Department of Aviation as an enterprise within the meaning of the TABOR Amendment to the Colorado State Constitution Series 2016 and Series 2016. B Bonds are special obligations of the city for and on behalf of the Department of Aviation, payable solely from and secured by applied to the net revenues of the airport system. Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the city will be pledged and payment of the series 2016 and 2016 bonds keeping with the intent 20 Dash 93 Plan B The Dear Emcee President of Council will be notified promptly of any material change. Company attachment contains a more detailed description of the financing. I do not anticipate formally communicating technical changes in the financing. Sincerely. Brendan J. Hanlon Chief Financial Officer, Manager of Finance.
|
Communication
|
A letter dated October 24, 2016, from Brendan J. Hanlon, Chief Financial Officer, in keeping with the provisions of Section 20-93 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (the “DRMC”), notifying of the Department of Finance’s intent to issue Airport System Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A and Series 2016B, for an on behalf of its Department of Aviation, in an amount not to exceed $308.5 million and $115 million, respectively, for the of purpose of refunding various series of existing Airport bonds.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10242016_16-0898
|
Speaker 1: All right. I don't see that we have any items called out except for there's one item, and I apologize for the couple of minutes that we started, but some last minute information came in to me. So I'm going to ask Councilwoman, if you could put I believe it's 898. Is that the correct? If you could put 898 on the floor for final consideration and passage and then we'll get some description of what's going on and put it to a vote after we do that.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 898 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 5: We have.
Speaker 1: Moved. We need a second. Thank you. All right. It's been moved and seconded. I'm going to turn it over to our assistant city attorney, David Broadwell, to give us a little recap of of the situation.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. We're going to be asking that you do a new motion to postpone this to a date certain being next week's meeting at the request of DPS. One of the parcels referenced in this land acquisition ordinance is actually a DPS owned parcel. And negotiations have been ongoing regarding a negotiated purchase and sale agreement between our US and our friends at DPS. But there are some issues that they want to talk through further and perhaps communicate to council, and we need to sort things out for a week more, perhaps at their request, before having council action on this acquisition ordinance . So if you'd be so kind to move to postpone until next week, we will no doubt come back to you next week with more information about that negotiation.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Are there any questions before we do that? All right. So do we. Are we? Oh. Councilman Flynn, do you have a question?
Speaker 5: Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. President. David, does is it necessary to acquire that parcel and the other one? For the National Western Center project. Through this ordinance. In other words, do we have to do this ordinance one way or the other?
Speaker 6: Well, an ordinance has required to go forth and acquire property per year per the charter.
Speaker 5: But do we have to designated as we do through this as a parcel for acquisition?
Speaker 6: Yes. In general, there's a finding of need for the acquisition that's reflected in the ordinance itself. But the actual the whys and wherefores of why the property is included is what I think we probably need fuller discussion on. Okay. In response to your Q&A next week. But there are people in the room who could talk about it tonight, if you like, but again, at the school district's request. So just asking for a little more time for us to organize our messaging, our joint messaging on the status of the negotiations and so forth.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any other questions? All right, Councilwoman Candace, would you make the motion for us?
Speaker 3: I move that Councilor Bill 898 be postponed and reconsidered on Monday, October 31st.
Speaker 1: Second. Looks like it's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary Rogoff.
Speaker 7: Black eye, I.
Speaker 4: As Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Can eat. Lopez All right. New Ortega I. Sussman, I. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Nine eyes.
Speaker 1: Nine eyes. We will postpone that until next week. Thank you very much. All right. Any other bills that we missed that are getting called out? All right. Seeing another, no others. All of their bills for introduction are ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members, please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you'll need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman, can you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration? On final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the final following proclamations be adopted. 785 929 nine 3841 868 869 923 924 935 792 926, nine, 27, 931 And then the following bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Bill 540. Bill 905 Bill 903 823 844 845 and 848.
Speaker 1: Right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 7: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Flynn I.
Speaker 4: Cash in. I can eat I. Lopez All right, you. ORTEGA All right. SUSSMAN Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Nine eyes.
Speaker 1: DANA As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on the mayor's proposed 2017 budget. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter must see the Council Secretary to receive a speaker card to fill out and returned to her during the recess
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to such property, as needed for the National Western Center Project.
Adds two land parcels inadvertently omitted from the legal description in the Land Acquisition Ordinance passed in December 2015, granting authority to acquire them as needed for the National Western Center redevelopment in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-7-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-4-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10172016_16-0988
|
Speaker 2: Santa Fe Drive Pedestrian mall see St Luke's Pedestrian Mall Deli Del Gainey Street Pedestrian Mall East 13th Avenue Pedestrian Mall South Downing Street Pedestrian Mall Tennyson Street Second Pedestrian Mall West 44th Avenue and Elliott Street Pedestrian Mall, Golden Triangle Pedestrian Mall and West 32nd pedestrian mall on two proclamations. We have three proclamations tonight. Councilman Lopez, will you please read proclamation 988.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 988 series of 2016 proclaiming the week of October 17 through October 21st of 2016 as Choose.
Speaker 4: To Be Great Week in Denver.
Speaker 3: Colorado. Whereas the city and county of Denver is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all of its residents and visitors. Whereas, youth violence, delinquency and bullying are concerns locally, nationally and internationally. And. WHEREAS, The Gang Resistance Education and Training Great Program is an evidence based gang and violence prevention program built around school based law enforcement constructed classroom curricula, teaching youth to say no to gangs, drugs, crime and violence. And yes to a great future. And. WHEREAS, the great program offers a continuum of components for students and their families that focus on providing life skills to help youth avoid bullying, delinquent behaviors and violence. And. WHEREAS, Great has now served over 6 million students nationally and internationally since its inception in 1991, and since two or since 2011, it has been taught to over 6000 students in the Denver public schools with partnerships with the Denver with the United States Attorney's Office, the John Denver Juvenile Probation Department, the Denver Police Department, and the Darren Denver Sheriff's Department in coordination with the Gang Reduction Initiative.
Speaker 4: Of Denver Grit.
Speaker 3: And I might add, city council members as well, too. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that in the pursuit of reducing youth violence and bullying while fostering a better relationship between youth and law enforcement officers, the Council of the City and County of Denver does hereby proclaim the week of October 17th, 2016, through October 21st, 2016, as Choose to Be Great Week. Section two. At the council, the city and county of Denver encourages all students to be upstander by speaking up against bullying. Wearing orange throughout this week and signing the great pledge, quote unquote, I pledge to use my great skills to reduce violence in my community, work to resolve conflicts peacefully, and stop bullying whenever I see it, end quote in Section three. At the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix and the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to the executive director, Paul Callanan of the Gang Reduction
Speaker 4: . Initiative of Denver, chief Sean Cohen of the Denver.
Speaker 3: Juvenile Probation Chief Robert White, the Denver Police Department Sheriff Patrick Furman of the Sheriff's Department, and Bob Troyer.
Speaker 4: United States attorney.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council proclamation 988 series of 2016 be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. This program is a great program, and with all pun intended, it is an amazing program. This is something that I know in Denver we have a great passion for. I see it in a lot of our schools, in our neighbors, and in our neighborhoods. And as a city councilman, it's awesome to see this interaction at such a young age. It's awesome to see our kids in Denver commit to nonviolence and to solve conflicts without resorting to violence. And it's not just kids and it's not just inner city kids. It's not just kids on one particular side of town. It's something that all.
Speaker 4: Of us should model. All of us.
Speaker 3: In our language and our behavior in our interactions.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: And this is something that we need to learn at a very young age. There's a lot of forces in our community that are pulling for our kids attention. Away from classrooms, away from homes. Away from public spaces, away from our libraries. And we have to do our best in our city to make sure that that choice that we have, that we are presenting to our young people is an easy choice. Right. And it's an easy choice in a good and in a in a positive direction. These young people amaze me. Every every school that we participate with. Every time that I meet, Garcia Sandoval invites me over to hear the kids come speak to the kids, bind up hearing from the kids. Because I think to many of us, grown ups. Talk a lot. And we like to pretend that we know everything there is to know about the world and that our kids need to hear it from us. But when we go and listen to them. We actually learn. In 2008, when I was first elected, we participated with a program like this one. I think it was one of the another program was associated with it but. One of the kids. I asked, Hey, so we're eating lunch. I say, Why is all this graffiti on our side of town? We used to have a lot of graffiti on the West Side. Why do I see it here? But I don't see it in Cherry Creek. And I was very careful when I said that because my colleague looked over at me. Are you daring him? No, I'm not. And he's doing that right now. But I said, why is that? What's the difference? What's going on there? And I asked. I didn't know the answer. I just said, Hey, why is it on this side of town? Why do we have all the incidents on this side town by seeing this Denver map and I see all over the place and I don't see very much over here. What's up with that? And everybody was silent. Except for one kid. And this kid got out and he says it's because the hood. So what do you mean by the hood? Because the hood. And so. Yeah, but what about it? I could do it here and nobody cares.
Speaker 4: Are. Nobody cares. So.
Speaker 3: And so we made sure that was the last time a kid in our neighborhood said about our neighborhood that nobody cares. With Grid with great. With all this.
Speaker 4: Investment.
Speaker 3: In our neighborhoods on the social level, on this on this level. I'd like to say that that number with graffiti has been almost eliminated. We do see it here and there, but I'm looking over it at some of my folks over there. We don't see it as much as before. We don't see that the kind of problems that that that I did when I grew up in the nineties, it was a day when we could even wear these colors. We were making progress. And we're making progress because we're investing in our young people. Because we're teaching them that nonviolence is hard work. But it's the only way. To be nonviolent requires. It's a lot of hard work. And that's what they're doing. It takes a lot of discipline. And that's how you solve conflicts. And when you flip on the TV now and you're hearing, you know, folks and talking heads, talking about punching this person out, or it's always some violent expression. That's what we got to work against. But I look in our schools and look at our young people in this program, and it is truly a great program because, ladies and gentlemen, this is not a.
Speaker 4: Problem that we can arrest our way out of. We can educate our way out of an it starts with these young people.
Speaker 3: So with that. Mr. President, colleagues, I urge support of this proclamation. I know there will be and I know there's other people in the queue. So thank you. I'm very proud once again to get this proclamation passed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Any other members of council? Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Lopez. I knew a black clerk. I. Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 6: Gillmor, i. Herndon, i. Cashman. Hi. Carnage. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I close voting, renounce the results.
Speaker 6: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes proclamation 1988 has been adopted. Councilman Lopez, is there anyone that you want to bring up to receive this proclamation?
Speaker 3: Yes, I do. I know there's a supporting cast and then there's there's an All-Star that's going to speak, so why don't I call them up? Let me bring up Shanklin, Deputy Chief Matt Murry, Probation Officer Debbie Garcia Sandoval and Pro Lopez, and then Cassandra with the U.S. Attorney's Office. And I know that there's somebody else you want to bring up, so.
Speaker 2: Okay. Go ahead. Who's first? Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Castle. Chief White couldn't be here.
Speaker 2: He's traveling out of state, but he asked me to pass on his wishes to you.
Speaker 4: And thanks for this. He often says the police are the community and the community are the police. And that is something we're working very hard.
Speaker 2: To accomplish in this city. And we do that with your support.
Speaker 4: And and.
Speaker 2: Certainly with all of these partners who really are the people who make this program work.
Speaker 4: We couldn't do it.
Speaker 2: Without doing it together.
Speaker 4: And we just absolutely thank them for all the.
Speaker 2: Hard work and the effort and the commitment that they have put into this program.
Speaker 4: And then finally, obviously, the young people of our city who are truly our partners in the future.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Sean con.
Speaker 8: With that the chief from Denver juvenile probation. And as you know, we are a state agency. And so this has been truly a wonderful opportunity for us to work with the city and county of Denver and recognize that these are our children not siloed as to what system they belong in. So it has been a wonderful opportunity to not only worked alongside our partners in Denver, but also to do prevention work. And I think we are the only probation department in the state that is actively doing prevention work to put ourselves out of business.
Speaker 5: So that is our hope and wish. And I appreciate all the support the city and county has given us.
Speaker 4: And Chief.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. I don't even know where to begin. This has been the most fabulous assignment I have ever had the privilege of doing. I've been doing it since 2011. And just to be able to work with all of these wonderful people, all of the students from Denver public schools that have been part of the great program and.
Speaker 2: Our city is absolutely.
Speaker 5: Fabulous. I can't say enough about it. Thank you, Councilman Lopez thing. Thanks to all of you for supporting this. To my department, to grid, to everyone. That is part of it. All of our partners, we are part of Choose to Be Great Week, which is all throughout the United States of America and in Central America as well . And so we truly wear that as a badge of honor. And I just can't thank you enough. And the students, if any of you ever get a chance to come out to the schools, that would be fabulous. And they will just hug you to death, just like they do when the police officers come in, have lunch with them, participate in the program with us. So you're all welcome.
Speaker 4: And thank you again from the bottom of my heart.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Cassandra Carlton. I'm one of the assistant United States attorneys on behalf of acting U.S. Attorney Bob Troyer and our entire office. I really want to thank city council for acknowledging this program as being such an important part of. Prevention and really building relationships with the students. So the recognition by council in this really does boost the entire program. And just want to thank Officer Garcia. Her energy and working with the kids is just amazing. At this point, I'd like to also introduce my cohort, Jason San Julian, who has also participated in the great program in the classrooms.
Speaker 4: President Brooks. Councilwoman. Councilman. My name is Jason St Julien and I'm an assistant United States Attorney in the District of Colorado in the Criminal Division in Major Crimes. And I stand in front of you today as a volunteer in the great program, and I want to make a very important distinction about this program. But so often in life we participate in some reactionary way that any event happens, and only after that event happens, we become involved. And given the current climate of community policing. Given that specific client, it's even more important now. But there is a proactive effort and a proactive mission. In the community. And that. Is what the great program is. You know, we're tasked to always answer this internal question of how do we reach those individuals? Before they turn to gangs and before they turn to violence. You reach them through the great program. You see, you reach them at a young age, as young as fifth grade. You reach them by bringing in individuals like these people. Into the classroom in a context that is non-adversarial. Just to be. With these children to teach them. So when they do have an encounter with law enforcement or an arm of law enforcement. That is not seen as something to challenge any confront and conquer. All it is. Is an interaction with another. Human beings. That's what the great program gives you. You see, these kids want this. And they need this. And studies have shown that when an individual, a young person has an an interest in adult in their life. They're able to make better choices and they can recover more quickly when they make bad choices. So here in front of you are interested adults. And if there's anyone here who's a part of great who is not standing, please stand. These are interested adults. These are the individuals that are in the classrooms teaching these students. And I volunteered at Gilpin Montessori. And after volunteering the principal. Told Parole Officer Garcia Sandoval in our office that these individuals showed a measurable difference, a measurable impact. From being a part of the great from. Now I can stand up here and continue to pontificate. Pontificate, but you have much more important things to do than listen to me. But I will note one thing from Councilman Lopez. That there are so many different factors pulling. Our children away from school. But this. And these people. That is an example of everything that is going right in our community. In the midst of what is pulling children away from school. This is an example of everything that is going right. So I thank you for honoring the program. I thank you for your work. And we look for continued involvement with the City Council in the great program. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Pearl Lopez with a great program. I just want to thank City Council for moving forward with this proclamation. And also in recognition, we're all wearing orange for this week. And just to remind everybody, students in Denver public schools will be proclaiming the great proclamation this week in school. So they'll all be made aware and reiterate that as well. So thank you so much again for allowing us to come and speak here.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we have some gifts that they brought us, and these are little wristbands. I'm going to start passing them down there. Choose to be great respect.
Speaker 2: That's great. That's great. What schools are represented here? Do you know? Oh, my God. It happened like that. That's probably okay. We have kids here from all.
Speaker 5: Over the city, from the great projects, right? From my.
Speaker 2: Experience. We good. We coordinated tonight. That was awesome. All right. Thank you all. Thank you all. The perfect segway into Councilman Clark, will you now please read Proclamation 99?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation proclaiming the week of October 17, 2016 - October 21, 2016 as Choose to be G.R.E.A.T. Week in Denver, Colorado.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10172016_16-0989
|
Speaker 2: Experience. We good. We coordinated tonight. That was awesome. All right. Thank you all. Thank you all. The perfect segway into Councilman Clark, will you now please read Proclamation 99?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I have proclamation number 16, dash 0989 celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 2016 Annual National Lights on after school day. Whereas the Denver City Council recognizes that afterschool programs make a lifelong difference for kids and their parents. And. WHEREAS, students who regularly attend high quality afterschool programs benefit in terms of academic performance, social and emotional learning and health and wellness. And. WHEREAS, quality afterschool programs provide students with access to academic support.
Speaker 4: Music, arts, sports, leadership, development.
Speaker 3: Conflict resolution and more. Building many important 21st century skills that inspire, increase confidence, and make connections to future education and career opportunities. And. Whereas, research finds that parents miss an average of eight days of work per year due to the lack of after school care for their children. Underscoring the importance of these programs in supporting working families and the economic strength of our great city. And. Whereas, the Denver Afterschool Alliance connects and unites providers, schools and city officials, families, funders and youth to create a long term collaborative plan for high quality afterschool programs citywide. And. WHEREAS, The Denver City Council pledges to support afterschool programs so that Denver's children and families have access to programs that support their success and strengthen our city. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council recognizes the outstanding leadership of the Denver Afterschool Alliance and bringing together all stakeholders to create a collaborative, long term plan for our city's afterschool system and recognizes. Thursday, October 20th, 2016, as National Lights on Afterschool Day Section two 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 transmit it to the Office of Children's Affairs.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman. Clerk, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the proclamation. Nine, eight, nine. Be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. And second, it comes from Clark. Your comments.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's always a good.
Speaker 2: Night when.
Speaker 3: We have the opportunity to bring young people into the chamber. And I know that this sitting here for all of you is way less exciting than what you do after school every day.
Speaker 4: And that's a good thing because you.
Speaker 3: All benefit from these programs. And I love your shirts. For those who can't see, it says After school matters because I matter and you do matter. You are the future of our city. You're the future of everything for us. And so making sure that we're providing.
Speaker 4: You.
Speaker 3: Young people with all the tools and all of the programs that you need to be successful. Because, you know, I'm wearing this hat tonight and I'm a CSC Ram and there are a lot.
Speaker 4: Of SIU buffs up here. But we will all agree that what we want is for you to be a RAM or a buff or wherever.
Speaker 3: You want, and to keep learning and go to college and be successful. And I think that these afterschool programs, as a dad with two kids who are in afterschool programs every day, well, my wife and I are working. I know just how valuable they are for my family and I know just how valuable they are for so many families. And so I'm very excited to have this proclamation and have so many awesome young people in the chamber tonight to celebrate this and just want to give another shout out to the after the Denver Afterschool Alliance for all the awesome work they do. Making sure that we're not just doing afterschool programing, but that afterschool programing is high quality and providing everything that our kids need. So I would encourage all my colleagues to please.
Speaker 4: Help me support these young people in this proclamation tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Clark. So you know the comments. I'll say this for actual. Actual. Both proclamations. Kids, young people. We love you. We're glad that you're in city council. Sorry. It's so boring, but. But one day you'll find this to be significant work. And I really actually just want to talk to the. The youth leaders, the folks who spend their time being with these young people. For eight years of my life, that's all I did. And it is such a rewarding experience. Now, looking back and seeing the young people who are now gainfully employed, taking care of their families and know that it was because of my investment into their lives. And so please keep loving on these young folks and thank you for what you do. Even when they talk back and get all crazy with you. Just. Just see them and who they're going to be in the future, because they're they're incredible. And I just want to echo Councilman Clark's sentiments. This is our future. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 10: Clarke, I.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: Hi, Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman.
Speaker 5: I can eat.
Speaker 3: Lopez I.
Speaker 6: Knew.
Speaker 5: Sussman Hi. Black Hi.
Speaker 6: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 6: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes Proclamation 989 has been adopted. Councilman Clark. Is there anybody you want to bring up?
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to invite Christina Saccone, who represents the Denver After School Alliance, and Elvis de Barney, an eighth grader from the bridge project of this.
Speaker 5: Hi there. Thank you so much tonight for recognizing after school and also for funding after school and systems work through the Denver Afterschool Alliance, which is a program of the Office of Children's Affairs in the mayor's office. Really briefly, so that we can get straight to Elvis. The Denver Afterschool Alliance connects providers and the school district and city officials and the broader community to ensure quality. And together, our impact is greater. Last year, 50 sites worked on the A's quality program, impacting more than 15,000 students across the city. And in addition, we also have a program locator with 600 program so the parents can go online onto the city website and look for afterschool and summer programs for their kids. So I'm really interested in talking to you guys more about this, but don't want to steal the show from Elvis here. I'll be reaching out to each of you to chat a little bit more about after school in your district and across the city. And besides all this, though, I also would like to ask all the students to rise since they came today and just to celebrate them. We have between 30 and 40 kids from the Bridge Project YMCA and also Boys and Girls Club around the city. So just want to recognize them as well. And now this is Elvis Devaney. Yeah. For all units. The shirt. All right. Hi. My name is Oliver Devaney. I'm a part of the bridge project, and I've been going there since I was in the first grade. It has helped me in more ways than one academically. The bridge project has helped me with homework, guided me to the places I need in school. It also provides tutors for all their students, was provided by DU and volunteers to give kids the health the help they need, but the call to give kids the help they need. But let's not talk about academics. Not only does a bridge give me an academic chances, it also gives me friendships that could last a lifetime. Right now, I can name at least ten friends. I bridge that I know and they know me. But also I have relationships with the staff too. I have known for a long time I love my mom and she loved me as a kid. When I was in first grade, I came home from school and like any kid, I would not do homework or read just straight to the TV. But honestly I think overdid it because one day when I was watching Arthur, the next day while I was here, Bridget helped me with me and my mom. Over the years since you've been work from 6 to 6, my life is awesome and bridges are reason why. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good job, Elvis. Well done. Nice name, too. Okay. All right. For our last proclamation of the evening. Councilman Cashman, will you please read 990?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 2016 annual National Lights on Afterschool Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10172016_16-0622
|
Speaker 2: Minute 30. We're going to take a minute break to let the stations identify this evening. Speaker should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they felt 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 let the council know that you are available for questions. Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which would result in a total of 6 minutes. On the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see the time counting down. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from any profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments at City Council as a whole and no refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 622 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 620 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and second, it fell here for 622 is open. May I have the staff report? Cortland, Heiser, welcome.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you very much, colonizer. With community planning and development here to present the proposed rezoning for 3700 Marion. So moving on to slide two, you can see that this proposed rezoning is in Council District nine. Fine. Slide three shows its location in the Cole neighborhood. And Slide four shows the specific location at 3700 Merrion Street. This is located at the northeast corner of Marion and 37th Avenue. It's in the vicinity of the 30th and Blake Station, which is just a few blocks away to the west. And just want to point out that the site is not in the 38th and Blake Hyde Amendments area that council voted on a few weeks ago. It is just outside of that. It's not in that area, though. Slide five shows some of the details of the request. It's a small property, a little less than 5000 square feet in size. The applicant is requesting rezoning to redevelop the site following loss of the original structure to fire a couple of years ago. And the specific request is to rezone from you someone to you annex to X. Slide six shows specific details about the requested zone district. So you an x2x is urban neighborhood context mixed use two stories maximum. This zone district applies primarily to small lots that are embedded within residential neighborhoods and allows only low skill building forms. Has a two storey height limit as opposed to most mixed districts, which would allow three or more stories. And it has lower intensity uses than other mixed use districts. The use list itself is limited to help ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Slide seven shows the existing zoning context. So the site itself has USA A1 zoning as do properties to the north and east. But all of the other corners at 37th and Marion have some form of mixed use or commercial zoning. So to the south there's x three to the west, Cemex three and catty corner across Marion and 37th from the site is old code zoning B4 which is a commercial district. Slide eight shows some details of the existing zoning the you a one. So this is an urban neighborhood context single unit district that allows accessory dwelling units. It has a 3000 square foot minimum lot size. And so given the size of the property, the redevelopment potential under the zoning would be one house and one accessory dwelling unit. Slide nine shows the existing land use maps. The site itself is vacant following demolition of the structure that burned down a couple of years ago. To the north and east are single family residential homes to the south, an industrial property and to the west. Our land use map shows it is undeveloped, but it's being used for outdoor storage. So Slide ten provides some images to go along with the map. The subject property is shown in the upper left hand corner of the slide. It's the vacant lot there and then moving clockwise around the slide. So over to the upper right corner, you see the sort of salmon colored residential single family home to the north, then the property to the east. Another single family home to the south across 37th Avenue is an industrial building shown in the lower right corner of the slide catty corner across Marin. And 37th is another single family residential structure. But that's a large lot and most of the property is used being used for outdoor vehicle storage. And then across Marion Street to the west is the vacant lot that's also being used for storage. Slide 11 shows some of the historic context here. So formally, the property held an eight unit apartment building that was lost to fire in 2014. This slide shows the structure post-fire obviously, but also mid demolition. Moving on to slide 12, you can see what the structure used to look like. So this is what formerly stood on the site. This is a google street view image from 2011. And as you can see in this image, the property had a structure that was originally a shopfront mixed use commercial building with the corner entrance. Slide 13 provides a little bit of background on the historic zoning that was in place prior to adoption of the new code in 2010. Informally, this particular property and surrounding blocks are two A and then most of the cool neighborhood was zoned R two. And that's the yellowish color that kind of dominates the image there. When this area was re zoned, an effort was made to identify embedded mixed use and commercial buildings within the neighborhood and give them um. To zoning and in slide 14. You can see that pattern in place in Cole and 37th Avenue in particular, where those embedded commercial buildings that were similarly situated to this subject property received you are max two zoning. Now at some point in its history, this particular property was converted from the former commercial use to being only a residential building. And if that had been identified in 2010 when the rezoning occurred, it's likely that this property would have received your max two zoning similar to all of the similarly situated mixed use commercial buildings within the neighborhood. Slide 15 summarizes the process which followed standard notification procedures throughout. Planning board hearing was held on August 17th and Planning Board recommended approval by a vote of 11 to 0. In terms of public outreach to Arnaud's, the organizations listed here at the bottom of the slide received notification throughout the process, and at the bottom it states that no public comment was received. Actually, earlier today there was an email that was sent to the city council email list that expressed support for the rezoning and that was sent by the property owner adjacent to and north of the subject property. So one of the single family residential homes. Slide 16 lists our five standard criteria which apply to this case. Slide 17, we'll start with consistency with adopted plans, and there are three that apply to this property. Slide 18. In terms of comprehensive plan 2000 consistency, the staff report identifies the three strategies listed here as being consistent with the request. And for more details on that, you can refer to the staff report. Slide 19 summarizes blueprint Denver's guidance. So in terms of street classifications, it identifies Marion Street as a residential arterial, and 37th Avenue is an undesignated local street. The property is an area of stability and the recommended land use by blueprint. Denver is single family residential. Now the definition for single family residential does provide for some allowances for limited commercial uses, as shown in the quotes there. At the bottom of the slide states that single family homes are the predominant residential types, though not the only residential type. And the max to ex district would allow some other forms of residential beyond single family. And it's further states that the employment base is significantly smaller than the housing base. So again, providing for some allowances for there being some limited employment base within single family areas. Slide 20 shows a couple of images from the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. So like Blueprint Denver, it identifies the land use as being single family for this subject property and it furthermore identifies a building height of 2.5 stories maximum. Slide 21 provide some additional details of guidance from the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan. So starting with the single family land use classification. It states that that applies to older residential neighborhoods that do not have a significant mix of housing types, and that commercial uses are limited to small buildings that provide neighborhood services. So again, similar to Blueprint Denver, there is some allowance within the definition of single family to provide for limited commercial uses. Recommendation A-3 in that plan, which applies to the neighborhood edge east of Downing Street. So the call in with your neighborhood edge states that of in that area, we should strive to maintain the current mix of low skill building forms to allow new development to replicate existing development patterns, and finally to allow a mix of land uses consisting primarily of residential but with limited neighborhood serving commercial. So on Slide 22, just to summarize the small area plan guidance, both Blueprint and the Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Plan recommend single family as a land use. Both plans have allowances for some compatible commercial development in single family areas, and neither plan provides detailed or specific guidance as to where commercial uses should be located within those single family areas. And so the argument that is advanced in the staff report is that the subject site is a rational location for you or max to ex because the former structure that occupied the site prior to the fire was designed as a commercial mixed use building similarly situated buildings in the core neighborhood. Have you max two zoning and the you a max to ex district is the least intensive mixed use district that is intended for this type of situation where you do have an adjacent C two residential. So Slide 23 summarizes the remaining review criteria, but the staff finding was that the request is consistent with our adopted plans regarding criteria to uniformity of district regulations. The proposal observes the established pattern of your max to ex zone districts for embedded embedded commercial buildings in Cole and 37th Avenue. In particular. It advances the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans. The justifying circumstances a changed or changing condition. The most relevant being the loss of the original structure to fire, but also the ongoing revitalization of the neighborhood and the opening of the 38th and Blake Station a few blocks away. The proposal is also consistent with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent statements. So the staff recommendation on Slide 24 is approval based on finding that all of the review criteria have been met.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Courtland. Always good job presenting. We now have one speaker this evening. Noah. Manos, you have three minute. Six. One, three, three. Okay. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 9: Hi. Good evening. My name is Noel Mannose. I'm the applicant and property owner at 3700 Marion Street and I'm just here this evening to answer questions and provide any further information that hasn't been detailed in the report.
Speaker 2: Great. You can have a seat and we'll let you know if anybody has questions. Okay. Questions by members of Council. You know. No, you come up. I have I have a question for you. Can you tell me how you're doing the development there? How many units are you going to have?
Speaker 9: We're proposing three or four units. Okay. The development plan is is yet to be determined, mostly in part because we don't really know what our zoning conditions are. So but we feel like, based off of the orientation of the lot, the lack of alley frontage and, you know, it being a corner property that, you know, the very generalized development plan would be for either live work spaces that had apartments on the second floor and small commercial spaces on the ground floor that would support small but hopefully creative businesses that, you know, kind of were. Kind of the nucleus of the Rhino neighborhood. And I've lived in that area for a long time and kind of want to perpetuate kind of the origins of what that neighborhood was. I think the other scenario would be a more common commercial ground floor that might be subdivided into two commercial suites with apartments, 3 to 4 apartments above it, but pretty, pretty small scale and , you know, pretty diminutive in terms of other development.
Speaker 2: You know, price point of housing. Is this going to be it looks like you're not looking for any old money so won't be affordable housing, but potentially attainable housing price points?
Speaker 9: We're not sure at this point. We haven't really developed our proforma. You know, we think obviously affordable housing is a concern and and, you know, sort of an important issue in in the whole neighborhood. But we don't really have any sort of definitive numbers as far as that's concerned. And obviously, the scale of the development is such that it doesn't fall within, you know, predetermined, affordable housing as dictated by the the FHA.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Any other questions for members of council? Seeing none. You can never see the public hearing for council bill 62 is close. Comments by members of Council. I call myself very familiar with this site and I'm sure you all are as well. This was in the news in 2014 as a site that was burned down. It was actually an affordable housing project, and it was a really sad deal. All of the folks who were in the fire, luckily, I don't believe we lost any folks, but they were all displaced. And, you know, our office, along with folks and OED, were able to provide some assistance to to some of these individuals. And for a while, the community really wanted to see this this site develop. I'll tell you right now that while you mentioned Reno, this is right on the edge of the call neighborhood where a lot of folks are seeing displacement. And so I would love for you to consider in that workers live, work space, some affordable components and love to have a conversation with you all. How we could accomplish that through the obvious economic development. Catty corner to your site is a site owned by the XTO Management Group and they are looking at a grocery store and affordable 60% of Army units above that. So this is going to be an incredible area and it would be sweet to allow some of the workforce to stay in the neighborhood. So I will be supporting this based upon the rationale of of the plan support. But also we had a long conversation at 30th and Blake and I can't believe this. You know, we didn't touch this area because this is less than 200. I mean, you could throw a rock and hit the 30th and Blake Station from here. You're going to have a pretty good arm to do it. But we looked at this corridor being higher intensity. So we this is something that we completely support and encourage my colleagues to support as well. All right. Seeing no other comments. It's been moving. Saying it. Madam Secretary, Raquel Clarke.
Speaker 6: I flynn. I gilmore. Herndon, i. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Susman. I black eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I was close voting. And now the results.
Speaker 6: Lebanese.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3700 Marion St.
Rezones 3700 Marion Street from U-SU-A1 to U-MX-2x (Urban single unit zoning to urban mixed-use two story) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-30-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10102016_16-0925
|
Speaker 4: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Communications. Do we have any communications?
Speaker 4: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: We have two proclamations this evening. Councilman Clark, will you please read Proclamation 925.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation number 16 Dash zero 925 Recognizing Carolan and Paul Rothman for their leadership, advocacy and support of the downtown children's playground. Whereas beginning in 2002, Carol Ann and Paul Rothman provided their initial support, advocacy and leadership for the downtown children's playground. And. WHEREAS, that advocacy and leadership not only continued, but increased exponentially through the completion of the final phase of the playground in 2016. And. Whereas, Carol Ann and Paul engaged, requested, approached, cajoled, and sometimes corralled anyone and everyone, anywhere and everywhere to provide support for the playground. And. Whereas, Carol Ann and Paul brought together residents throughout the downtown and lower downtown communities to help care for and help maintain the playground each and every weekend. And. Whereas, without this tireless, ever present and always positive commitment for this needed recreational amenity, the downtown children's playground would not be a reality now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver recognizes Carol Ann and Paul Rothman and thanks them for their tireless and generous advocacy and support for the downtown children's playground. 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 Carol Ann and Paul Rothman.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman. Clerk, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the proclamation 925 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in seconded comments from the council. Councilman.
Speaker 6: Clerk Thank you, Mr. President. This was a project that I got to see take shape from the very beginning stages, from seeing an empty field and a huge need transform into just one of the most special places in all of downtown Denver. And it was really special for me because then I this I started watching this all come together before I had children. And then I got to take my kids down and experience that playground from a kids point of view and really understood the impact for our entire city, because downtown is a part of every single neighborhood in our city. But really for the growing number of people who are living downtown and who are raising children downtown, to have this magical place right by the creek where kids can play and can learn and can grow. And just like so many other projects along our waterways, you can point to this project and say that project wouldn't have happened except for except for a lot of times I saw a big foundation coming in to support. And in this case, it really was two individuals who put this this on their back and said, you know what, we're going to will it to be we're going to make it happen and we are going to do everything and anything and just keep fighting and scrapping, not just so that it's there, but so that every little phase of it gets built out. And, you know, we're all in these twos debt for what they've done for our city, for our community and for downtown. And so I would encourage all my colleagues to support this proclamation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 4: Clark I Espinosa Flynn I. Gilmore, i. Catherine I. Carnage I. Lopez I. New Ortega I. Assessment I. Black i. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Councilman Flynn. The not working. And. And. Okay, I got it. 12 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes proclamation 925 has passed. Councilman Clark, anyone.
Speaker 2: That you'd like to bring up?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. There are a few people who I'd like to come up, but I will start by handing it off to the fearless leader of our Parks and Recreation Department, the honorable Happy Haines. And I'll let her pass the torch from there. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Indeed. Thank you so much. Council President, Councilman Clark and other members of city council. It's my pleasure once again to be here. I have so much fun here. This is so many good things happening last week and this week and every week. And I am I couldn't be more delighted tonight to be here to honor these two incredible individuals. Karellen and Paul Rothman embody the values that make Denver such a great place to live in civic responsibility, social responsibility, stewardship, love and commitment, especially for Denver's families and children. And as a former educator, it's not surprising that Carol Ann's infinite passion for children and her overall wish for children to live healthy lives has inspired her and Paul's work in the lower downtown neighborhood. This all started nearly 15 years ago, when Carol Ann and Paul Rothman shared a vision with Denver Parks and Recreation and the Greenway Foundation to build downtown Denver's first neighborhood playground. And they never stopped. As it is with many of our projects, it took a lot of effort to cobble together the resources to bring to make this dream become a reality. For over ten years, Carol Ann and Paul personally contributed, fundraised and advocated for hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund various phases of the work that was just completed. The final phase was just completed. Located next to the Cherry Creek Regional Trail and in close proximity to many of downtown Denver's wonderful venues the Pepsi Center, Elegies, Coors Field, and the Denver Performing Arts Complex. The Downtown Children's Playground serves both as a neighborhood and regional playground where young and old singles and families can enjoy our great outdoors in downtown Denver. And as the downtown Denver population continues to rise in the number of visitors and workers that continues to grow in our downtown area, this downtown Denver children's playground plays a huge role in helping to create a family friendly downtown area. Today, Carolyn and Paul remain actively involved with the ongoing operations of this downtown children's playground. As you heard earlier, organizing and leading community cleanups and making sure that the free little library stays fully stocked with children's books. So members of Council I, on behalf of Denver Parks and Recreation and the citizens of Denver, I want to express my sincere gratitude to Carol Ann and Paul Rothman for their dedication and commitment over the years to make downtown Denver a better place to live, work, play and thrive. Congratulations to you, and thank you so much from the bottom of our hearts. I would like to turn it over to an extraordinary individual who is an amazing partner of our cities. And you, we are probably going to be tag teaming a lot because in nearly everything that happens in downtown and lower downtown I the Greenway Foundation is is an an incredible partner. And I'd like to introduce my great friend and partner, Jeff Shoemaker.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Happy?
Speaker 1: Mr. President, we have to stop meeting this way.
Speaker 7: Thank you, members of Council. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Councilman Clark, President pro tem. This one is very, very personal to me.
Speaker 0: Happy mention.
Speaker 7: 15 years and she's.
Speaker 0: Right. That's when the work began on this.
Speaker 7: But the vision.
Speaker 0: Of this started.
Speaker 7: Five years prior to.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 6: And it just never got off.
Speaker 1: The ground until this.
Speaker 7: Spark, this.
Speaker 0: Passion, this zealous advocacy.
Speaker 7: In the names of.
Speaker 6: Carolyn and Paul Rothman came on board.
Speaker 7: They have invested their financial, their personal, their neighborhood, their residential, their regional advocacy and passion for this project. And I will tell you that without Carolyn and Paul Rothman and you can take this to the bank, there would be no downtown children's playground, no brag. Just a fact. And I'm going to turn it over to these two amazing people.
Speaker 6: And I know you have.
Speaker 1: Good work.
Speaker 7: To do tonight. I don't want you to be too jealous because the Shumaker family is going to take the Rothmans to the chop house and we're going to close the place down here in a little bit. But I want to introduce and recognize two significant individuals within the Parks and Recreation Department without whom as partners three way partnership. Imagine this public, private, philanthropic and to I mentioned the word last week skipper every project has, you know, a good skipper, a good general. And the two generals of this project are here tonight, Mr. Mark Bernstein and Mr. Tom Hockey, and they had the challenge of dealing with Shoemaker on a daily basis. But without them, this project again would not be possible. And it is my honor, it is a personal.
Speaker 0: Privilege for me.
Speaker 7: To introduce to you this amazing couple, Carolyn and Paul Rothman. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Well, I want to thank you. This is really a wonderful honor for us. And I guess what I'd like to say is back in 2002, we had no idea of how to build a favorite playground. And I guess, as Jeff mentioned, for five years of $10,000 had been raised and we had just gotten a rejection letter for a grant. So we sort of started from the beginning, and I think none of this could have been done ourselves alone. So I'd wanted to thank those who really share in what we are receiving here tonight. We could not have done it without them. So first I'd like to single out Mark Bernstein at Parks and Rec and others who we worked with over the years, and especially our councilwoman, Judy Monteiro, who was always there for us whenever there was a need. The Greenway Foundation sort of helped us along the way, who we should contact, how we should get things done. And we had great support from ARCA, Tara and Andy Deford, who designed the things for the playground. But most of all, I think in sharing this award with others, the biggest group that I would single out would be the people in our community. When we were told that in order to get a go code grant, we needed to show broad based support from the community. We got contributions from literally hundreds of people, some very little, some larger, and that really got us going and on the way. So although we both stand here today, many, many people share in this honor and made it possible.
Speaker 1: And again, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Carolyn.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It was a long, long journey, much longer than we anticipated and as any long journey. There were highs and lows. But now that the three phases are finished and the three little children's library is there, we can see so many special things. And I love to go down there and see mothers having coffee together and the children playing. I love to see often on a weekend you'll see fathers taking over with their kids and at lunch time you'll see office workers from all over having lunch there. We also see people that don't have anyplace else to go. And I think some of the highlights have been when they've seen us down there cleaning up with one of the crews and thanked us. So that's been very special. But I think the most special thing for me is I was down there and this is an example of it last week delivering books. And this little boy was with his mother probably four or five, and he was all over the place and having a wonderful time. So he saw me putting books in and he came up and he wanted to know what I was doing.
Speaker 8: So I explained how we could take one or he could read it there, and if he.
Speaker 3: Had any at home, he could bring them another time. And I said, Do you like this playground? And he said, It's my secret and it's my playground. And I think that's the biggest difference for me. You mentioned the dirt and nothing, and it was like that. It was just dirt. And now you go there and it's green and lush. There are people using it and having a good time. So thank you for giving us the opportunity to do this. And it's been a long but fun journey and we've learned a lot. And I have to say, I admire the city when I think how many years it took 15 years to get this playground together. I have no idea how the big projects happen. I really don't. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I love it when our head of Parks and Rec says she likes to come in here because it's so much good happening here. We don't hear that very much, but thank you. I appreciate it.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing Carol Ann and Paul Rothman for their leadership, advocacy, and support of the Downtown Children’s Playground.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10102016_16-0624
|
Speaker 1: 11 eyes, zero nays. Council Bill 599 has passed. Congratulations. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 624 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Thank you. Mr. President, I move that council bill 624 be placed upon final consideration and do pass it.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved in second to the public here for council. Bill 624 is open. May we have the staff report? A barge. How are you this evening?
Speaker 7: I'm very well, thank you. Members of council. Good evening. I'm as council president, Burke said a barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development. I'll be presenting an official map amendment. Along Pearl Street, between 16th Avenue and 17th Avenue. There's a range of addresses. And then moving on to slide two. You see that the site is in Council District ten. And on slide three, that it is in the uptown statistical neighborhood. On slide four, the property is 1.44 acres. It's a full half block. And the applicant request is custom zoning based on the CMCs eight zone district, and it would be a planned unit development or PWD. And also they propose to retain the current uptown design overlay idea, one that applies on most of the site. Looking at site five, the zoning on the site in an area is almost exclusively urban centered neighborhood context. On the site, the heights range from 5 to 8 storeys permitted now and the it's in mixed use and main street districts, the surrounding districts are a similar mix. The on slide six, the City Park Natural History Museum view plane applies to this site as it relates to the site. It limits heights to 130 to 135 feet approximately, which is quite a bit less limiting than the existing or proposed zoning. So it it doesn't have have an effect on limiting building height at this time. The on slide seven uptown uptown design overlay d01 applies to most of the site. Now that's the yellow area within the red area, which is the proposed rezoning. And the proposal actually would extend it to apply to the whole site. So it would also include that northern little area there. The design overlay implements additional qualitative design standards and guidelines that are used by staff to review projects in the area. On Slide eight, you see that the those guidelines address considerations like vehicular access, structured parking facades, the design of those facades, architectural scaling, masonry materials, facade transparency. So it's an additional level of review that happens for projects in the area with the intent of ensuring that the higher density projects which will happen throughout uptown as it becomes more and more of an urban residential neighborhood, will have a high quality human scale design. On Slide nine, the existing land use on the site is mostly surface parking. There's also commercial retail, residential and office uses and a mix of similar uses on the surrounding lots. Looking at Slide ten, some photos of the site. The photo on the top is kind of the iconic view of the tavern building there at 17th and Pearl. And a big part of the custom zoning approach that I'll tell you about in just a moment is about retaining that building and the one storey commercial building that you see just to the right of that on the site while allowing for additional redevelopment on the remainder of the site. And then on slide 11, if you look at the lower image, we're looking down Pearl Street, looking east, and there's another big building on the site. That building faces 16th Avenue, that two story residential building. And the planned PWD does not propose to retain that building. On Slide 12, additional details about the rezoning request. It's based on the general building form in the CMCs eight zone district, and then it would add requirements to preserve key features of the two buildings that are defined as remaining buildings, the tavern building and the one story building next door. It varies height limits by sub areas across across the site to redistribute the height entitlement from where those remaining buildings are to the remainder of the site. And it includes some site standards that help differentiate the remaining buildings from new construction. On Slide 13, you see the proposed sub areas and over on the right hand side of Slide 13 in sub area C and D, those are the areas that face 17th Avenue. So Saberi, A D has the tavern building in it and so various C has the other remaining building sub areas. E and F are really set up to help differentiate those buildings from what will happen on the rest of the site, which will be on in some areas A and B and on the next slide side 14 , the image that's towards the bottom of the slide is a three dimensional representation of those sub areas, along with the proposed permitted height in them, which would be starting with the sub area on 16th Avenue is Siberia. A The height limit would be 74 feet and six storeys. It then goes up in the center of the site. In summary, a B to ten stories or 110 feet. 110 feet is the maximum building height on the site now and then the remainder of the sub area is closer to 17th avenue d, e, c, d, e and F. All relate to the preservation and maintenance of those remaining buildings limiting height in Siberia, C and D to the parapet, height of those existing buildings. And then in summary, E, which wraps around the tavern building, the height is limited to one story, so it would actually drop down before going up again to to the redevelopment area in the center of the site. On Slide 15, there's some variation in required build to and setbacks from the underlying zoning on most of the site server's avian seats. ABC Andy. It would be the same as the CMCs eight zone district, but in summary, E and F the build to and setbacks are varied to help differentiate the remaining buildings. And so there's actually a small setback so that as you walk along the street, the buildings will set back just as you pass the remaining building before coming back to the sidewalk edge where the new development is happening. An important part of the PD. This is slide 16. There are. There's a two page spread of tables. There's one for each of the two remaining buildings which outline the key features that must be retained in those buildings. And on Slide 17, there's just a really high level summary of what those tables include, is that on the most visible area of the facades of those buildings, which of course includes the street facing facades facing Pearl Street and facing 17th Avenue, as well as the most visible part of some of the side facades. The PD directs preservation of the brick facades themselves the cornice, the brick parapet, the chamfered corner configuration on the tavern building. Then there's also a secondary area of facade defined that is a visible area of side facades. So for example, the side facing second floor of the tavern building will remain visible after redevelopment because the height limit right next to it will be one story as the building steps down. And there there's a little bit more flexibility that the brick facade would have to be retained, but new window openings could be placed in that in that facade. And then on Slide 18, just to show you, there's an attachment to the PD that includes as built drawings of those remaining buildings. So that we clearly know right now where all of those elements are and what their dimensions are so that they can be retained in the future, like the the cornice and the existing window openings . On Slide 19. The process to date has included communication with the wide range of Arnaud's that are adjacent or near the site. And then on Slide 20. Just list the key process dates up until this hearing. And for each of the previous meetings, the planning board hearing, the delivery committee meeting and this hearing the Arnaud's listed on the previous slide were notified and signs were posted on the site for planning board and for the City Council hearing for public comments. We've received two written comments. Both are letters of support. Capitol Hill United Neighborhood actually helped organize a neighborhood assembly with Uptown on the Hill, Swallow Hill, historic Denver and the applicant team. And at that neighborhood assembly, attendees voted unanimously to support the planned unit development concept for this site. And then Chun has also just sent in an email of clarification saying that they do support the height that's proposed at the 16th Avenue end of the site as well. At the planning board hearing. Two speakers spoke in favor of the application. On Slide 22, looking at the review criteria for considering a rezoning, the first consistency with adopted plans. Slide 23 is Comprehensive Plan 2000, which recommends conserving land by promoting infill development consistent with neighborhood character, investing in a range of housing types and services, and promoting sustainable centers with jobs and housing near transit. On Slide 24 Blueprint, Denver designates the site with the concept land use of mixed use and the entire site and surrounding areas within an area of change where Blueprint Denver foresees most of the city's future growth. On Slide 25, the adjoining street 17th Avenue is a mixed use arterial, and Pearl Street and 16th Avenue are local streets. The Uptown Neighborhood Plan. This is slide 26, also applies to the street, to the site. It's an older plan from 1986, supports mixed uses in this location. It talks about there being a distinction in height and bulk between downtown and the uptown area where the site is located. And that existing development pattern should be referenced to establish an appropriate pattern of scale in bulk that encourages continuity of historic character. And then the diagram that you're seeing at the bottom of this slide is a diagram of heights that are permitted by the Natural History Museum, City Park View Plane, and it's just included there because the plan says that closer to downtown, it's really that the heights that are permitted by that view plane are the appropriate maximum heights . And then it says it should step down further than that, moving into the neighborhood where the proposed rezoning is located between Pennsylvania and Park Avenue. And just to note, that's where the proposed rezoning is. Locating the view plan would permit 136 feet, and the maximum proposed height is 110 feet. So KPD finds that the proposed PD is consistent with applicable adopted plans in terms of uniformity of district regulations. The next criteria on slide 27, we find that it would result in uniform application of district building form use design and design regulations across the site that the proposed rezoning furthers the public health, safety and welfare, primarily by implementing adopted land use plans. On slight Slide 28, we look at the justifying circumstances criteria for a MAP amendment. The applicant has indicated justifying circumstance of changed conditions. You know, clearly this is an area that has and will continue to undergo quite a bit of change. Looking at Slide 29, there are two images and it's just really interesting to see that the image on the left from 1933, it might be a little hard to see, but the the neighborhood is is pretty filled in. There's lots of buildings. It's a high density, vibrant neighborhood. In 1933, fast forward to 2014, mostly surface parking. So we're moving back towards 1933 in terms of what kind of neighborhood this will be on slide 30, consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The proposed underlying zone district is in the urban center neighborhood context, which is consistent with this area, as is the general building form in the CMCs eight zone district. And then on Slide 31, just looking at additional criteria that apply to use of a planned unit development. So as you know, it's CPD policy to use base zone districts whenever they can get the desired result on a site. However, there are exceptions. We believe this is one. The zoning code talks about the unique and extraordinary circumstance, justifying use of APD as being where a customized zoning approach is necessary to protect and preserve the character of a historic structure or history or historic district. It's my understanding that those two buildings that are defined as remaining buildings probably would not qualify for local landmark designation. And we have a pretty high bar here. However, you know, they're well-loved buildings in the neighborhood. And it's also possible that the 17th Avenue corridor would actually qualify as a historic district. And if so, those would be contributing buildings in the historic district, which would protect them. However, that's a that's a long process that would involve a lot of a lot of the neighborhood. And so in terms of protecting and saving those buildings now, I think this is a unique and extraordinary circumstance justifying the use of this of the PD to protect the buildings. So on Slide 32, CPD recommends approval of the Map Amendment application based on finding that all review criteria have been met.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Tonight, we have five speakers on Council Bill 624. I'm going to just call the first five speakers. So Michael McNally, Josh Larimer, Sean Maley, Andy Lewicki, Tom Dragonet. You each have 3 minutes. Come on up to the front.
Speaker 0: Michael McNally and with Sutherland Company, the owner and developer and the applicant in this case. I want to thank Council President, council members for your time tonight and for hearing this. This application. I'll give you a quick history on this project. In the spring of 2015, we identified this site and started working with with the landowner and with our architects to do our due diligence, put the land under contract, started to figure out what we could do here when it's so far that we went through the landmark process and were granted the rights to pursue the permits. We actually went through a key concept plan and actually got approval for the initial plan. We then closed on the land. I guess the press release with the Yellen closing sparked some community interest and from historic Denver and the surrounding neighborhoods about the saving the building. And so they approached us. We stopped. We met with them, had several meetings. And, you know, shame on us for maybe not being as sensitive and realizing the nature of those buildings. But we quickly listened. And I like to think that that's the kind of developer we are that.
Speaker 1: Will stop and.
Speaker 0: And listen to the community and and understand what's going on and see if we can find solutions. So we we quickly engaged with the neighborhood and had several meetings, several large format meetings, as well as over 20.
Speaker 1: Individual meetings with.
Speaker 0: Neighbors and constituents in the area. We studied many options. Historic Denver and other people even suggested maybe even adding more height. But we were very focused on trying to come in and stay under that 1/10 height limit. We felt that that was the appropriate height and massing there. So after several months of working in design, we we came up with this option that you see today. And it's a long story, but a year and a half later, we feel that with the preservation agreement that we have in place for the historic Denver, that any events he can can highlight more for you. When she speaks the rezoning process with the PD, we're able to to kind of come in and keep everything at the respective height limits, but figure out how to take what was up on the street where the tavern was and pull it to the back. And we we feel like at the end of the day, it's been a great public private partnership. It's taken a while, but at the end of the day, we have a better product and we're excited about this project. I'd like to thank Councilman Knew for his support and helped her in this process. The city staff historic Denver shine swallow hill uptown on the hill our many neighbors it's it's been a it's been a challenging yet rewarding process that we've been through. And we're excited to hopefully see this project advance. I'm available for questions if you have any.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. McNally. Josh Larimer.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Josh Larimer.
Speaker 0: I am with Shears Adkins Rockmore.
Speaker 2: Architects at 1550 Wynkoop. I don't have a statement, but I'm available for questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Larimer. Sharmila.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Shaun Maley. Address to 1660 Lincoln. And I've been working with Michael and Southern Land Company on this rezoning and outreach process. I'll keep my remarks very brief tonight and be here to answer any questions, but just wanted to make note of a few additional items. Again, this conversation started about 18 months ago when Southern Land began meeting with historic Denver Councilman New and other folks from the neighborhood regarding the tavern building in the site. And I want to give kudos to historic Denver, all the neighborhood groups and my client Southern Land as all parties worked extremely hard to get this project from the initial approved concept plan to the pretty concept that's before you tonight. I also want to commend city staff and CPD for all their hard work and their willingness to roll up the sleeves and work on this party with us. I know that parties have not been the mode of choice for zoning projects lately, but the ability to customize the zoning was absolutely essential to make this project possible. Also, just wanted to note the extreme lengths we've gone to to not only work with the neighborhood organizations, but every adjacent owner to this site. There's well in excess of 20 owners. And we've had.
Speaker 7: Meetings for.
Speaker 6: 12 to 18 months with every single property owner to make them aware of this project in every regard from the zoning, the preservation agreement, parking both on street and off street utilities, construction, logistics, timing, etc.. So again, we're very happy.
Speaker 7: To be here tonight.
Speaker 6: With this rezoning before you and I'm here for any questions. Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Reilly. Annie Levinsky.
Speaker 2: I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver. And we're looking at 1420 Ogden Street. And I'm glad to be here tonight on behalf of our Board of Trustees to support this rezoning at 17th and Pearl from the CMC's eight and CMA x five to the Peabody. This rezoning did come about as well as has been mentioned as a result of our negotiations with SLC as the site owner to preserve the 116 year old streetcar commercial building that sits on the corner of 17th and Pearl and its adjacent one story addition. The building which we've all come to call the Tavern Building, is part of a series of important streetcar commercial buildings that line this section of 17th in the summer of 2015, when news of the plans to demolish the buildings broke. We did start hearing from a lot of community members. It was actually the most active social media outcry we've had and within a few days we had garnered 1700 signatures on a petition that we quickly cobbled together. And when I reached out to Southern Land Company, to their credit, they were very receptive to the conversation and willing to talk about it. And so I definitely want to express our gratitude for them for being so open and to working with us over the course of last summer. In the meetings, they mentioned to come up with a solution on how to develop all the adjacent vacant land and those parking lots that we hate to see, but also to preserve what was special about this particular location. And we it's, as has been noted, the preservation it accomplishes, I think, to desire goals of the preservation as well as maintain the same level of density as originally proposed for the project. In addition to the SLC has agreed to execute a second more detailed preservation agreement with historic Denver if the rezoning is approved, the additional agreement has already been drafted and provides guidance on changes that will be made to the building and will ensure its protection long into the future. Well, after the buildings, the new building is constructed, this solution, involving both the rezoning and the preservation agreement, were presented at the community meeting by Chan back in February of 2016. At that meeting was well attended and there was unanimous support for the concept. And as noted, Chan, who could not be here this evening, also sent a letter of support to you last week. So again, we are really grateful to Southern Land Company for their willingness to work on this. Also appreciate the leadership of Councilman Nu and the city staff and the whole team. It's been, I think, a great case study in how these situations can be resolved. And we really hope that this project will become a case study in how the old and the new in our city don't have to be in conflict, but can work together to make Denver an enduring city. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Lewinsky. Tom Reagan. Any.
Speaker 6: I'm writing 8950 17th Street lawyer for Southern Land.
Speaker 0: And I'm here to answer questions of any.
Speaker 6: Come up that require my answer. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. This concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: It's clearing us out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just saw that. I have Espinosa first and then Cain each.
Speaker 5: So don't care who answers it. I may have missed it. Is the building currently or planned to be a landmark structure or is it not? The 17. The one on 17.
Speaker 7: So no. None of the buildings on the site are currently landmark structures. And is it probable that none of them would actually meet the criteria for individual designation?
Speaker 5: Um, maybe a little bit too far back in the history of Denver, but do you know why those buildings weren't part of the urban renewal that sort of created the season of parking lots that we have there?
Speaker 7: I don't know. And plus one of the other speakers does, you know, I mean, we obviously lost a lot of buildings in the area and along that corridor, and some of them dodged the bullet putting these two buildings.
Speaker 5: All right. Thanks. No further questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Kinch and then Flynn.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. A question for you. Obviously, a good kumbayah found a common ground story, but I am a little nervous about the level of detail on the slide you showed with the corners and the windows and the turrets. In a landmark situation, if you needed to do new windows or technology changed, you had someone you could go to. I'm nervous about whether or not, you know, the simplest thing would work. I mean, we've run into this before with Pewds, where you have to get a rezoning because your door breaks, you know. So is there a process like that in the zoning realm that will avoid this coming back to council if something minor changes? I mean, I just I'm just curious about the level of detail.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 7: There is quite a bit of detail on the one side looking at the as built drawings, which are an attachment to the PDA. And yet the intention is we had a lot of discussion about that and developing the PD that the basic standards in the PD list the the just only the most important key features to retain like the cornice and the the window openings. The as built drawings include additional detail about quite a few things, but really they're just there as a reference so that if there's some question about where's the cornice and is this replacement similar to the original, that we have a reference point for answering those questions. But the Pudi isn't structured in a way that says that those sheets those as built a define what can happen there's a there's a broader range of things that can happen and those are just reference to that basically.
Speaker 12: Got it. And if there is a question, however, who does it go to? The zoning administrator? Who's the person who helps to answer those kinds of questions? I mean, it's it's an awkward place to do. I'm glad we're doing what we're doing is trying to be clear. But is there is there an administrative level where those questions will get answered?
Speaker 7: Right. So, you know, when we have challenges with zoning questions, there's a technical team that includes the zoning administrator that helps look at those things. And in a case like this, we bring in landmark planners to who, you know, understand the terminology and the architectural features that we're talking about. But we did very intentionally write it in consultation with the zoning staff so that it's it's written in a way that they can understand and really what's in the base. PD just has a few basic preservation objectives in the form of those key features to protect, and then the height limits that are set at the height limits of the buildings.
Speaker 12: Okay, got it. Thanks. And then one question for Annie Levinsky, please. The corner building makes a lot of sense to me. It's notable I had to look up a picture of the one story building next door. It's not memorable. Why? Why is that included? Especially being one story in an area where we're putting more density.
Speaker 2: We talked about that back and forth a lot. Our primary focus had been the two storey building, but also very much emphasizing the pedestrian scale of 17th. And part of what makes that scale special is the the street wall that's created there and that is consistent for we have gaps in it because of the surface parking. But where you don't have separate for service parking, you have one and two storey buildings along this part of the corridor. And so in talking to Southern Land, they agreed that they were willing to protect that it provides sort of a buffer and a transitional area to the larger project. But I'm not I can't recall exactly the level, the language in the PD, but in our preservation agreement there is quite a bit more latitude on the one story building because there's not as much original fabric. So it's really maintaining the scale and the street while there, but not as much because it is not a detailed building
Speaker 12: . Super. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman, can each. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I guess I for first, I want to congratulate and thank all the players here from Southern Land and councilman knew and the community for coming up with a real creative solution to this. I think we've all been reading some of the stories that have occurred and whatnot.
Speaker 6: But I'm very I'm curious about one thing, just as a.
Speaker 0: Matter of curiosity. Sub area E is has a 16 from Abe. Maybe you can address this sub area e is a.
Speaker 6: Once has a one.
Speaker 0: Story 16 foot limit on it and it's kind of L-shaped between other suburbs. I'm just curious, what's the what's the purpose of that?
Speaker 7: So the purpose of that sub area. So Councilman Flynn is talking about severely wrapping around Siberia d there is to differentiate the remaining building, the tavern building from the new construction that will happen the bigger new construction that will happen adjacent. And so this is a preservation principle to help, you know, differentiate the old or historic. From the new. And what's happening here is that the height will drop down because there's that low height limit and it'll be like a connector building and then the height will go way back up again. That connector building will also step in because you'll see that Subrip E is the only sub area that has setback requirements.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 7: Right. So Sudbury is all about differentiation.
Speaker 0: It actually sounds very interesting, but I'm just curious why it was lower than even D and and C.
Speaker 7: Right. So the buildings that it helps the tavern building separate from the new construction. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Gilmore, did you pop out of there?
Speaker 2: No, thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Flynn asked my question.
Speaker 1: I get that synergy. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, are you back.
Speaker 5: Up to more? Yep. Sorry. Actually, that's sort of interesting that you so very e would exist because they could have had a building. The sort of I don't know. It was wasn't unusual for those buildings to be smacked up against one another in that context. So along those lines, though, was there ever a conversation about doing some sort of encroachment on top of the building? ALA What we just did with the Emily Griffith Center.
Speaker 0: You know.
Speaker 7: I actually inherited this case from Tim Watkins, so I wasn't around for the early part of the process. Do any of you.
Speaker 6: Remember discussion of.
Speaker 0: Something coming. We definitely looked at several options, some some of them included, maybe cantilevered over the existing structures. But when everything was weighed out, I think context and massing, we wanted to respect those those existing structures. The experience along 17th, as Andy noted, can leverage can get expensive. So we found that we we could get the net rentable that the project needed with the, you know, the additional storeys within the existing height limits. So that's where we focused and tried to stay off those buildings as much as possible.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's a, there's a fringe benefit in that a little more daylight into that area for a longer period of time. So there's it's it's overall a good thing. One other question was, was there ever a discussion in determination along something along the lines what we do with conservation overlays, where we would have sort of compelled work on on that in some areas D or so very easy to go through landmark design review and just simply leave it at that and say here's where we're working. But in that context, you're going to have a mandatory designer view.
Speaker 7: Yes. So thank you for the question, Councilman. In a conservation overlay, we actually wouldn't do that. Typically, you know, the intent is that when something is a historic landmark, it is designated, you know, either individually or in a district. And that that's clearly when the preservation system applies and things go through preservation review at the Landmark Commission or other commissions in situations like this or like in a conservation overlay district where the desire is just to promote a compatible new development that's compatible with a certain character, we would try to define things in a way that's simpler and more quantitative than in a preservation situation. And so we did sort of steer clear of the idea that alterations to those buildings would be reviewed by the Landmark Commission, say, or even specifically by landmark staff. Just to just to clarify that boundary, you know, that they are not designated.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Any other questions? Members of Council. Okay, great. This concludes our questions and comments by members of Council. Uh, Councilman new?
Speaker 7: Yes. I want to thank.
Speaker 6: Southern Land Company. This what a great project that you're putting together in the area. We're trying to promote greater of residential development and and the retail, but also preserving the historic building, you know. You know, you go you over that tavern you really appreciate it is sort of a cute little thing. And and it's going to be a great addition.
Speaker 7: To that area. And I'm so.
Speaker 5: Glad we're we're saving.
Speaker 6: It. So it was an excellent project that you put together and and a good example.
Speaker 7: Of using.
Speaker 6: The PUD as a as a to I like that.
Speaker 7: I to several.
Speaker 6: Meetings and listening and was something that you emphasized Michael it is so true. We had so much discussion in area all the Southern land people and representatives and architects listen to residents in the community about what they wanted and what they wanted to save and what they thought.
Speaker 7: Was good for their community.
Speaker 6: So I really appreciate appreciate that. And and it's really a model for how I think I don't know who mentioned it, but it could be a model for how we go forward showing collaboration between developers and the community. So it was a really a great project and I really appreciate all you've done and I'm really proud to support this project and this whole redevelopment that we're doing in Colfax, in North Capitol Hill.
Speaker 7: And I also invite all my colleagues.
Speaker 10: To go and get.
Speaker 6: A great hamburger sandwich and beer at this tavern is just wonderful.
Speaker 7: Too. So we'll have to convene over there one night.
Speaker 6: But congratulations and I think you'll be a wonderful project for the community.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just it's a pleasure, actually, to be voting on something like this. So I want to thank the owner. I want to thank CPD for four for reaching into the party box and finding out that there's a really terrific tool that we have in order to reach this sort of compromise. I want to thank the community and historic Denver for being involved in that dialog and for everybody finding consensus. Because, you know, this is what that tools for when you have something that defines the sort of character of an area, you know, and we have the means and the in the right developer with the wherewithal to make that happen. It's really nice to see that we can end up in this forum with a solution. So I'm sorry that it may have been some teeth pulling in in a struggle to get there, but I think where you've ended up is in a really good place. And I think Denver's better will be better generations ahead of now when we're long gone, basically seeing that marriage of what you've what you had and what you're going to do. So thank you. And I thank you CPD staff as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I'll just you know the comments. I'll just make a couple of comments. Councilman knew this was in my district for four years and then you stole it at just the right time. Just when it was it was getting heated up in the in the neighborhood. This is something that I'm supportive of. Good job. Both all three sides, the city and our governor and also the developer, I think I think is great. The comments I actually want to make have to do with our notification of neighborhoods. So this is actually a you can take this back to your boss and Gabby, you can take this to the mayor's office. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that the points, the five points historical redevelopment court was on the required neighborhood. I mean, that is 15, ten, 12 blocks away. And they could care less about this project or where it is. And also, you know, Colfax Business Improvement District is is on this as well. So I've been saying this for like five, six years, maybe five years that we need to look at our neighborhood notification and make sure it's accurate, make sure neighborhoods aren't defunct because that list was about 12 to 15 and that's a lot. So anyway. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 4: New Ortega. I. Sassaman. I Black Eye. Clark. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Cashin. Carnage. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: A Lebanese.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes. We keep looking at councilman lopez. 11 Eyes Council Bill 624 has passed. Congratulations. Good work, guys. All right, Councilwoman Black, the last bill. Can you please put it on council? Bill 752 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1601-1671 Pearl Street and 524-538 East 17th Avenue.
Rezones 1601-1671 Pearl Street & 524-538 East 17th Avenue from C-MX-5, DO-1/C-MX-8, DO-1/C-MS-8, DO-1 to PUD - G15, DO1, in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-23-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10102016_16-0752
|
Speaker 1: 11 eyes. We keep looking at councilman lopez. 11 Eyes Council Bill 624 has passed. Congratulations. Good work, guys. All right, Councilwoman Black, the last bill. Can you please put it on council? Bill 752 on the floor.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 752 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in, seconded the public hearing for council bill 752 is open. Sarah White. Can we please have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Sarah Waite with Community Planning and Development. Here to present staff report four 4150 Melody Street. On slide two, you can see that we are located in District nine. Slide three, you can see we are in the Globeville statistical neighborhood. Slide four details. The request that we have here, the property is just under 70,000 square feet and they are requesting a rezoning to potentially in the future redevelop the site for multi-family housing units and to better align it with the adopted plans in place. The request is to rezone from IAU oh two to C-Max 12 or x 12. I'm sorry, that's incorrect. On the slide, slide five, the requested zone district is c x 12. In the urban center neighborhood context. It is a residential mixed use district with commercial uses limited to the ground storey with a maximum height of 12 storeys . The surrounding zoning in the area immediately to the northwest and south of the site is all IAU oh two. We do have some CRM ex 20 directly to the east and then a little further west towards the station. We have some pieces that have already been re zoned into TMX and CMC zone districts. The surrounding land use is primarily industrial, currently with a mix of multifamily and single family scattered around. Slide eight shows just some of the examples of the context in the area. It's really mixed. We have some three storey newer multifamily. We do have some low scale single family in the area, as well as some one and two story residential or industrial. I'm sorry. There were several are and I was notified during this process and the planning board moved on their consent agenda to recommend approval, as well as the committee decided to move this forward on the August 30th agenda. And we have had no public comments. The five zoning criteria are applicable here. We have several plans in place, including Comprehensive Plan 2000, Blueprint, Denver 41st and Fox Stationary Plan and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. On Slide 13, we have several of the principles from comp plan 2000 that are applicable to this rezoning request. Those are detailed further in your staff report, but they're mostly related to infill development. Slide 14, we can see the Blueprint Denver recommendations for this area. This site is recommended for urban residential and it is an area of change. Slide 15, we can see the land use recommendations from the 41st and Fox station area plan. Again, we have a recommendation of urban residential and a recommended building height of 2 to 12 stories. Then Slide 16, we have the recommendations from the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, which reinforce the recommendations from the 41st and Fox station area plan. Again, we have urban residential area of change. And on Slide 17, you can see the height recommendations from the Globeville neighborhood plan with a maximum recommended building height of 12 storeys. So the rezoning request is consistent with all three of these plans. In relation to the uniformity of district regulations. This would consist of a uniform application of the Sierra Zone District and for the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adapted land use plans. The justifying circumstances for this request is that the land or its surrounding environs has changed. We have several areas of change here. We've got the 41st and Fox commuter rail station scheduled to open later this year. The proposed redevelopment in the area signals the change in the surrounding environment to the 2D context, and the current zoning of IOTA does not reflect the city's adopted vision reinforced in all of the small area plans. And then the consistency with neighborhood context and urban center neighborhood context is consistent in this area, and the Sierra Zone District does promote a safe and active, pedestrian, skilled, diverse area that we'd like to see in the TODDI and the Sierra. X12 applies to residentially dominated areas where 2 to 12 storeys is desired. So given that all five criteria have been met, CPD recommends approval.
Speaker 1: Wow. That was really good. Okay, so presentation is over. We have one speaker. Keith Hurley. You have 3 minutes. Thanks for being here. Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 6: I'm glad I'm the last one. I'm here to answer questions, but I do have a few.
Speaker 5: Comments, if I could. If they would. Please go ahead. I would just like to.
Speaker 6: Know that.
Speaker 5: I've been trying to I would love to stay there. But to get a permit to.
Speaker 6: Expand my building to accommodate our growth would be near impossible.
Speaker 5: Given the permitting circumstances in the in the city. I've been trying for ten months to get a permit to just.
Speaker 7: Build a.
Speaker 6: Break room and a bathroom for my employees. And I still don't have a permit. And the pot shop across the.
Speaker 5: Street thrives while we struggle to accommodate a growth. So I think it's best that we move out of our current location. And I just would like to.
Speaker 6: Get my frustration on.
Speaker 5: Just trying to expand, add people to my small manufacturer, and I think it's best that we move from that location.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? And I have one just to. Keith, can you can you come up? You are the tenant or the you own?
Speaker 6: I own the building. And my my I.
Speaker 5: Also my company operates a building. We are a small manufacturer of signs and lighting.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. And so you are you plan to move, but you want to you want to sell this property eventually, or will you be the developer?
Speaker 6: No, I'd like to sell the plant the property to an apartment developer.
Speaker 5: It's a it's a great location. We're one block from the light rail station with views of downtown. It's it's better suited for multifamily.
Speaker 1: Is is the sale of the property contingent on this rezoning. Yes, sir. All right, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: I want to ask a question, and I'm sorry I didn't get your name first. Sarah.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Sarah.
Speaker 3: Sarah, we've done a number of very high density rezonings in this area. And I want to know what kind of look is CPD taking when we look at the aggregate of the density that will be in this area, knowing that there is primarily one road into this site where we're going to see some serious traffic problems once all that development occurs, assuming it builds out to what has been proposed in all the rezone applications that have been brought to council.
Speaker 2: Sure. And I can't speak to any specifics on this site other than, you know, we do have a few small area plans in place that speak to recommendations generally of connections. Any time that we have development at a site development plan level, it's referred to all of the applicable agencies. So I really can't speak to it much more than that. You know, this is what the plans that were adopted by the neighborhoods call for here, this density.
Speaker 3: So so I guess I just want to draw this to the attention of my colleagues, because in this particular location, once we start seeing all of these proposed developments that we've already approved rezonings for, begin to move in. We're going to be expected to play some role in, I don't know, either white ministry, and I'm not sure how much the zones are taking into account that need that will exist into the near future. But again, with Box Street being the primary access point into this area, I don't see people going all the way around and coming in through the Globeville neighborhood unless they happen to be coming from the east side of town to get there. But really, from council on the downtown, that's the primary area. So I'm just raising that as a red flag that we need to be thinking about not only in this area, but where we're significantly increasing the density and we're wanting to ensure that the infrastructure is adequately employees to accommodate what we keep allowing to occur as higher density coming into these areas.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And if I may, I know that there have been some discussions related to the Fox home development about some additional access points to the neighborhood. It's a little further off and I don't know a lot of specifics about it, but there is that discussion happening as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Great. Any other questions for members of council? Actually, I have a question for Councilman Espinosa. Real quick, Councilman Espinosa. So I'm on the neighborhoods tonight. And one of the neighborhoods that this CPD made the developer reach out to is North Highlands. Do you believe that North Highlands, since you represent them, are concerned about this rezoning?
Speaker 5: Essentially, yes. To the point that Councilwoman Ortega was making in that the 38th Avenue underpass is our only connection from the north part of North Highlands and all of the sunny side to downtown. And it is now a odd intersection with Fox Street, which is the lone point of access to the South from this whole area. And so if we want to encourage my own constituents to access 41st and Fox, we don't have adequate we don't have any surface parking or anything on on on my side west of anchor. But we do have all that surface parking and whatnot that RTD put in there. So it's a very we're doing this thing in a very discombobulated way. And so I do think that if we're thinking in a sort of micro regional level, then yeah, both Sunnyside and Highlands would be concerned about that future.
Speaker 1: They didn't I didn't see them comment on that.
Speaker 5: No. I will be honest. I think they like being informed, but you won't see them comment because it's outside of their statistical neighborhood boundaries.
Speaker 1: Thank you for saying that right there. I will talk about that in my comments. Okay. This this concludes the comments for members of council. Public hearing of council bill 752 is now closed. I'll call on myself this be in my district. Representative. First of all, sir, apologize that you are experiencing those long waits for your permits. We are working. I can tell you, this whole council cares about efficiencies in our permitting department and we are subcontracting out. We are hiring new folks to deal with the demand that's going on. And so just apologize that your business isn't able to do. We hope sincerely that you stay in Denver. Denver is a great city and we would love to work with you in the future. I'll just say I'm going to be supporting this because it's consistent with the neighborhood plan that freshly has just been done 18 months ago . I do raise the same concern as my colleague Councilwoman Woman Ortega. I don't think we have adequately thought about access points out of the neighborhood. It's one way and one way out, but we really have to put a lot of thought in that. And I think it's Crissy thing and allow Brad Buchanan and all the folks need to get together and we need to have a real conversation about that. To my third point, I do not know why we're notifying neighborhoods to neighborhoods away, especially active neighborhoods that I know if they had an issue, they would be commenting immediately. And so point taken on the 38th underpass because that is a contention point. But I would love someone on this council to take on the registered neighborhood conversation and just make sure that we have good, vibrant neighborhoods and that the reach out point isn't all the way across the city or 15 blocks away of folks who don't care about the particular development. I think it I think it's inefficient. So I will be supporting this. I'm just commenting. Okay. Any other members of council want to make a comment? My goodness. It is 8:00. Three public hearings. Well done, everyone. It has been moved the second it. Madam Secretary Brokaw.
Speaker 4: Black eye, Clark. All right, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. I, Catherine. All right. Can each new Ortega assessment? Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 4: They're not going back there.
Speaker 1: Oh, there you go. Yeah. Yeah. Please call the voting results.
Speaker 4: 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes down to Bill 752 has passed. Congratulations, sir. There is no pre adjournment announcement except that I'm disappointed in my Colorado buff alumni up here. This man still doesn't have a hat. See no other business for this body.
|
Resolution
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4150 N. Elati St.
Rezones property located at 4150 North Elati Street from I-A, UO-1 to C-RX-12 (rezones light industrial/residential to urban mixed-use residential with a twelve story height limit), in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-30-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10032016_16-0908
|
Speaker 1: Partner in making this all happen. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. Mr. President, a quick aside, it's great to see you behind the wheel. You were missed and I'm happy for you. And I'm happy for your family. And by the way, Councilman Clark, you would never say this, but it was your vision back in 2009 that started this whole thing. And you used the phrase for the first time nature in your own backyard. And that's where this all comes from.
Speaker 3: So members of council understand, you know, where the genesis of.
Speaker 1: This park is. Projects like this happen because of relationships and because of partnerships and because people take the words me.
Speaker 7: And myself.
Speaker 1: And I, and they replace them with we and us. And let me name.
Speaker 6: Real quickly the names, because I will get the hook here in about 30 seconds. Colorado Lottery, Great Outdoors. Colorado City and County of Denver EPA.
Speaker 1: Denver Trout Unlimited Urban Drainage in Flood Control District.
Speaker 6: Gates Family Foundation, Johnson Family Foundation and Quick Family Foundation.
Speaker 1: That's how these things happen, Councilman Clark. And these are real numbers. We're actually up to $35 million of projects on the river right now. Nine project sites either built, being.
Speaker 3: Built or being.
Speaker 4: Envisioned. This is the place.
Speaker 1: Where I used to take my trash with my dad in the early 1960s, one of seven landfill dump sites along the river. And this was ours and it's not there anymore. And we.
Speaker 6: Have truly a premiere magical.
Speaker 3: Site and I'll finish.
Speaker 6: By echoing every project. At the end of the day has a skipper, and the number one skipper of.
Speaker 1: This project has been Mike Bouchard.
Speaker 3: And it's important that you all know that it's an honor to be here tonight, and I'm just a little bit pleased. Thank you all very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you so much. There are many residents who watch this Channel eight, and many of them just found out that the lottery helped fund many of our parks every year. So I hope folks know that it's it's amazing.
|
Presentation
|
Colorado Lottery presents Denver Parks and Recreation the 2016 Starburst Award for Vanderbilt and Johnson-Habitat Parks.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10032016_16-0909
|
Speaker 1: It's a great project. Thank you, guys. Okay. Communications. Madam Secretary, do we have any communications?
Speaker 2: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: We have one proclamation this evening. Councilman Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 909?
Speaker 9: Absolutely. I'd be happy to. Proclamation number 909, observing September 15th through October 15th as National Hispanic Heritage Month in the city and county of Denver. We're, as Americans, observe National Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15th through October 15th by celebrating the histories, cultures and contributions of American citizens whose ancestors came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean and Central and South America. And. Whereas, Colorado's history, culture, economic and civic like have been shaped by the end, influenced by the contributions of people of Hispanic descent over many generations. And. Whereas, Denver is home to a large, vibrant and growing population of Latinos, whereas Latinos represent 32% of Denver's population. And. WHEREAS, The city and county of Denver has benefited from many contributions made by inspiring Latino leaders, including the recent recipients of the Denver Public Library, Latino Community Service Awards pilot Castro, Reno, Frank Priscus, Marlene de la Rosa, Luis Torres and the Colorado Latino Hall of Fame will be including Dr. Jose Vigil, Rad Tafoya, Salazar Family Foundation , Honorable Federico Pena, Susan Cordova, Casimiro Barela at their October 18th event. And. Whereas, Latino residents have contributed immensely to Denver's culture and economic mosaic as laborers, service workers, chief executive officers of companies, large and small performers, artists, musicians, athletes, city employees and political leaders at all levels of government. Government as exemplified by Secretaries Federico Pena and Ken Salazar. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one. The Denver City Council, in recognition of National Hispanic Heritage Month, Please, pays tribute to the generations of Hispanic people who have positively influenced and enrich the lives of all people in the city and county of Denver. In Section two that the city clerk of the city and county of Denver affix the seal to the city and county of Denver to this proclamation.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Or take your motion to adopt.
Speaker 9: I move for the adoption of proclamation number 909.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded comments from the Council Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I thought it was important to bring this forward. I'm not sure that council has been doing this historically. I know when I served on the council before we did this on a regular basis, just to draw attention to the fact that there have been many contributions. And although that has occurred, there are still many challenges and disparities that exist within our communities. Some of the very neighborhoods that we have been struggling to help people keep people in their housing or we're seeing gentrification and displacement happen. And the work that was done by Councilwoman Kennedy. And you, Mr. President, in creating a dedicated funding stream for affordable housing, is really vital to keeping people in the city who have helped build this city, you know, whether it's laborers, you know, as I mentioned, Mayor Federico Pena, who played a big role in the building of DIA and the huge economic engine that that is for our entire not just metropolitan area, but this entire region. So. I would just ask that my colleagues support this. We don't have anybody here to speak to accept this tonight. But I think in light of one of the other bills that we have on our agenda tonight, there is a huge correlation between many of our Native Americans and our Latinos. Many share both both cultures, both heritages. And I'm excited about that bill that is is before us tonight. But I just want to take this moment tonight and acknowledge the many, many contributions that Latinos have. Mexicanos have have played throughout the city and county of Denver over many, many generations. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Ortega, for it. She tapped me on there, but she really wrote this and move this forward. And I'm glad I'm glad to co-sponsor this with Councilman Ortega. And I agree. I think, you know, it's important to celebrate. It's important that we have a proclamation. But it's it's not just a cute we're talking from this dais. And what we're trying to really exhort is that, you know, the celebration of our people and of the contributions of their people, their celebrations of our our history, our own, all of our history together. And how that you know, how that fabric was worn. You know what I can say and I'm glad you brought up I'm glad we're talking about real issues because. We don't celebrate Hispanic Heritage Day by popping open a corona. Or by going to eat a taco salad bowl, we celebrate the Hispanic community, the Latino community by our actions and not just as as council members or elected officials are appointed officials whose constituency is Latino. Right. But we honor them by by making sure that this community is not invisible. That when we walk by these buildings and construction sites, we see the people that build them. When we walk through these hallways and whether they are lawyers or clerks or council members or janitors, that we see them and we acknowledge people. Right. And we honor that. And I would say the same thing for our Asian American, our Muslim, our African-American, our our Anglo American brothers and sisters. It is, you know, this month just really highlights the history. Right. And there are so many different people from different cultures that make up this Latino group, just to say Latinos really are a huge umbrella term. But. We do it in our actions. And, you know, if I mention a couple, I mean, it's just really the tip of the iceberg and how we affected on city council. It's, it's, it's understanding zoning and how zoning affects culture. Our signing code in our community mural ism is a big deal. And if you don't think it is, think of Orozco or Rivera, you know, mural ism is throughout our neighborhoods. So having a sign code that doesn't make it illegal to have a mural that has your sign on it right in our sign code, that's just zoning . Right. When you look at affordability and you look at small businesses, there's different ways in which we touch this and how culturally we have to all become aware. Right. And so this is one of those things where, you know, it's not necessarily is it's what our officers. Right. Or in our data collection as a city, when they make us check a box that says white, black or other. And I said, Well, you're a mexican, all right? She got on. Great. But are you black or are you white? Well, I'll Mexican. Are you black or you're white? Okay, if you're going to make me pick, I'm going to put indigenous. Because. Just because I have a last name that's Spanish doesn't mean I'm from Spain. If you have a notice and you look in the mirror and look like a Spanish dude. Right? But it is our actions in in our policies. But it's all of us, all of our partners, everybody in this city that provides us services that government falls short in doing or cannot do or relies on that is truly celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month. It's looking at our own actions and every single day it's making sure we do not see human beings as somebody other than human beings that they're in. They're not invisible, that they live and breathe in our city no matter what they look like or what their last name is. So in that, I proudly support this proclamation and.
Speaker 1: Are moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. I swear it wasn't some sort of conspiracy, but there were a lot of names mentioned in that. And I also wanted to sort of say, because I'm sort of sensitive right now as we approach a general election about some of the things that have been said towards many minority groups in our country. And, you know, when you dropped names like Ken Salazar and more particularly to Denver, Federico Pena. What's important is that when you know he's synonymous with our airport, that's not a Latino airport. That's Denver's airport. And it's a it's a it's a it's the place on the map in this country and that sort of vision, you know, the sensitivities, whatever, you know, his upbringing was, you know, to sort of have that vision and.
Speaker 8: And bring forward.
Speaker 1: And marshal the political muster, whatever it takes to get to that to to implementation and reality and realization in the things that we do as individuals with our backgrounds to move this country and our and our and everybody forward. You know, I don't wasn't prepared, right, to talk, but what I'm getting at is that we don't make these decisions. I have a Hispanic heritage. Yeah. And that shapes who I am and where I stand on my principles and who I but I work for everybody. If you saw who was spearheading my campaign, it wasn't a huge Latino outpouring that said we want you elected. It was it was a large group, a very wide cross-section of Northwest Denver. And I'm glad that in the end, we had huge support from from across the the area. But I'm working for everybody. And yeah, my heritage matters because it is a is a perspective. But I think that we all bring it into sort of dismiss or disregard anybody in this country for where they come from. Is, is not how we we get to a great place. And so I'm happy to support this proclamation. But when we think about the people that that were mentioned, they're all doing great things for everybody in this city, in this country. And that's what I'm here for, is to do my best for you. So thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Thank you. President Brooks. I wanted to say thank you to Councilman Ortega and Councilman Lopez for bringing this proclamation forward. You know, being a fourth generation Coloradan with family from Trinidad and from New Mexico, it's amazing the diversity of our Latino communities in Colorado. And really, you know, I used to always ask my grandparents, where did we exactly come from? And they were like, we've always been here. We didn't come from anywhere else. And so this is our home. And so from that perspective, I'm honored to, you know, support this proclamation tonight and that we continue the conversation about all of the many accomplishments that folks from our multiple, you know, diverse and inclusive Latino heritage have provided and continuing, I think, to provide the opportunity to make sure that their voices are heard. The one thing that I feel like I can do is at least open the door or pull out a seat at the table and make sure that folks are able to communicate exactly their own experiences. And if that's the least that I can do, I think I'm doing a pretty good job. So thank you. President Brooks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I'll just make a couple of comments in saying that, you know, what strengthens proclamations like these and is allies? Allies are different people, groups and and African-Americans. You're mentioned in this, Councilman Lopez, have intertwined relationships with Latinos and native people from the African Aztec alliances that used to happen. And I, I, I stand with this proclamation. But more importantly in this city is so important. We recognize what people have done in this city. I always say this because a lot of people don't believe it when they come to Colorado, but Denver is 50% people of color and it has a rich history and we need to talk about it and we shouldn't be ashamed to talk about it. Matter of fact, we should celebrate it. And so thank you, Councilman Ortega, for putting this forward. And I hope that we can begin to celebrate all of us amazing people's heritage, especially Hispanic and Latino. So with that, Madam Madam Secretary, roll call Ortega I.
Speaker 2: But I. Clark by Espinosa. Flynn, i. Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. I can eat. Si. Lopez. I knew. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close voting, announce the results.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes for commission narrow. Nine has passed because when I take it you do not have anyone to bring up. But thank you for bringing this forward. All right. We have a resolution. Madam Secretary, will you read the resolutions?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation observing September 15 through October 15 as National Hispanic Heritage Month in the City and County of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10032016_16-0801
|
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Now, can we bring up Council Bill 801? And Councilman Clark, will you put will you put council will 801 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 801 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and said Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I, I wanted to call this bill out because it's not like the others. Normally, in a block vote, these are routine bills and resolutions at that. Move, move forward. What is this council bill? You know, one is not necessarily routine. And I wanted to call this out because this is an important marker, this important milestone in our history as a city council bill. You know, one is an ordinance designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples Day. And this is in perpetuity unless and this is an ordinance. Last year we had a proclamation and that proclamation and in our proclamations they're non-binding, although we proclaim and as a city council, we, we, we vote on it and we proclaim and they're very celebratory in nature, which does not take away from last year, which I think was incredible. It was a very important step. It was unanimous and it was received with a great deal of love and and gratitude. And we were honored. And I think I could speak for the majority of council that day. This is a tremendous honor that we felt in our community and our council right here. Being here and hearing the prayers and having the people here is was beautiful. So this particular bill approves this ordinance, and this is the first time. In Denver's history. That we will have a Denver an indigenous people stay. And we did this because our community. Is important. Our city owes our very founding. To the indigenous peoples in Denver. And I do this because our history books erase such history. And history is told through the eyes of the victor. And when you look at history, when you study history, when someone talks about the history of Denver, it always begins with the gold rush. And how it was subtle. Bye bye. Settlers and folks heading west looking for gold along the confluence of the Platt and Cherry Creek. And I was going to say this earlier with the Platte River and the importance of the Platte River and what that means when we honor the Platte River and when we're trying to rehab that Platte River and bring it back to life and not let it be something where we dump things in. But something that we celebrate is because that very confluence of that Platte River and Cherry Creek is where our city was founded. And it was founded by the Arapaho and Cheyenne people. That's where their camp, their seasonal encampments were. That's why it was on the map that way. That's why it was a great place to build a city. So we owe it. To the founders of our city. The true founders of our city. Our history, we owe them. But we also know that in the course of history, especially as folks pushed westward, that there had been. A. Forced removal. Of historic discrimination and violence. And I'll read this. Whereas for as the seasonal encampments where the city and county never hereby recognizes the historic discrimination and violence inflicted upon indigenous peoples throughout the Americas and the subsequent forced removal from ancestral lands. And the deliberate and systematic destruction of indigenous peoples, communities and culture resulting in high poverty rates. Disparities in education, health and socioeconomic status. And. Whereas, we as a city recognize that. And that is very important for us as a society, as we recognize our wrongdoings. We recognize is we recognize where where we went wrong. And it's not an empty apology. It's not. Or we'll name a team after you. War mascot will be. An Indigenous person. That's not the way you want it. You want it by making it no longer invisible. That history is no longer invisible. But that history is not just no longer invisible in our communities, but in our textbooks. So, you know, I know that as we move forward, this is something we hope that DPS will take up. Begin to teach. And. We want to recognize that there's also vast contributions in that education as we look forward towards the future. And that's the science, the knowledge, the philosophy, the arts, the culture. And through these contributions, our city has developed. Our state is developed. We do this not in opposition of anything. Not in spite of anything. We do this for. Our community and our city in support of our community. In our city. Support of that that indigenous culture. And I could proudly say that today. Was the first day. Now we do so. And in saying that, I want to acknowledge and recognize our our American Indian Commission. I mean, Goa was here. I mean, we're flying. Arthur received it last time, you know, for for working with me on this and going back and forth, our city attorney or assistant city attorney, David Broadwell, my staff, our community, our city staff, but most importantly and above anything else, our community. This isn't something that was just thought of this last year. This struggle has been going on for four decades. It's taken marches in the street just to be seen. It's taken civil action. It's taken civil disobedience. As a matter of fact, I sat in the same pews as we were being arraigned for what we believed. What we wanted to honor and see in the B.C.. And now it feels good to be opposite. To be able to have this bill in front of us. And, you know, to be able to read this and vote on this not as a bloc, but it's independent vote. And I want to save some of the umph for next. Monday on the 10th. Although this bill is being voted on today. And I hope my colleagues will vote to move it forward, to pass it on final adoption. But on next Monday, the 10th, we will have a proclamation celebrating our first Indigenous Peoples Day officially in Denver, Colorado. So with that, I. I support this bill moving forward, Mr. President. And I would be honored if my colleagues join me in a yes vote to making this become law.
Speaker 1: Well said, Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I spoke in support of this at committee. And once again, just wanted to thank Councilman Lopez for this important proclamation of our intention as a city to change how we honor this state. And I really especially think that it's important, not just in terms of recognizing history going backwards, but also to have more attention on Native issues moving forward, disparities, whether those be in terms of income, employment or homelessness in our city so that we just like the earlier proclamation. Think of this as a call to action. And just I can't help but note that it's special, I think, to have the Hispanic Heritage Proclamation on the same day as this . These are two distinct cultures, but they come together in mestizo and the mestizo space of of of Latin and and and indigenous peoples who are sometimes melded in their backgrounds. So. So I think that this is a fitting combination to have these tonight. And I will be happily voting in support of this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa, I saw you click in. I did, but I. I'll reserve my comments. Okay, great. We have. Let's see. No other comments. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Sorry, is shown on my screen. I'm not sure why it's not on yours. Thank you. I just wanted to make a few brief comments as well and thank Councilman Lopez for his efforts in working with the community to bring this forward. And I know this is something that has been in the works for a very long time. So thank you for your efforts. I just. Think that it's important also to mention the role that our Native American community played in. You heard me talk about DIA earlier. When we were moving forward with the construction of the highway, one of the things that happened was we worked with some of the tribal leaders to do a ground blessing on the site. As you all know, that used to be part of the old Sand Creek Massacre corridor. And I thought it was extremely important for Denver to do that. And the interesting thing about the event was the media wanted to know when and where it was going to take place. And I worked with Mayor Webb at the time to ensure that that happened. I didn't attend it. We made sure the media didn't know when and where it was because it was, you know, a very traditional sacred event that needed to take place and to, you know, pray for the lives of of the souls who were lost in that massacre. The other thing that Councilman Lopez talked about was the the history of where Denver started. It started with our Native American community right at the at the core of the Confluence Park. The city acknowledges that to the degree of seeing a number of the the parks, I mean, not the parks, but the roads down in the lower downtown and platte valley area named after some of the tribal leaders. We want to wynkoop a little raven. I remember when the naming of little raven was being proposed. Our public works department was recommending that that be called 29th Street. And I just you know, I was the councilperson of the district at the time. And I said, how do we make these decisions about what streets, what we're naming our streets? And I said, What other names did you look at? And they mentioned Little Raven. And this was when they were bringing through the committee process to do the official naming. And I said, I want it named Little Raven. And so when when that official, you know, name was put up on the street, we actually had some of the tribal leaders from the Cheyenne tribe there, and they actually were given a street sign that they were able to take and put up on display in their community. So just being part of so many of the things that have happened in this city is exciting. I worked at the state capitol when the Commission in Indian Affairs was created in George Brown's office. The lieutenant governors, it's been part of that office. I worked there and had the benefit of going to a peace treaty signing ceremony between the U.S. and the Comanches, who had been at war with each other for for 100 years. And a lot of these things, as Councilman Lopez said, are not written in our history books. You know, you in and one of the things that's occurring and those of you who have not taken the time to talk to your elders and record some of the history so that you pass it on to, you know, our children is is so important. I know in in New Mexico on some of the reservations, there are people actually doing filming, too, now of some of the elders to make sure that that history is documented and passed on, because it isn't translated in many of the history books you get in your public education system. So I again, just am happy to support this and again commend Councilman Lopez for his efforts in our Indian commission and the work that you all have done with our entire entire community. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez, I see you back up.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You know, I wanted to really emphasize the 10th, Monday, the 10th and proclamation that will be here in the quarters we'd love for. And I wanted to make sure the community because we do have community folks, I want to make sure that we come back on the 10th because we would like to give not only the proclamation, but a copy of the bill over. Right. And and ceremoniously and also just for the community. I know this Saturday I didn't mention this, but the Saturday is going to be, in addition to all the events, a rally at the Capitol at 1130. I mean, 130, 130. You mean marches coming from all over the city and they're going to be here. Good celebration of all directions, all nations. And that that's really when you when you look at the what it really means is all directions all nations for went. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Raquel Lopez.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: New Ortega I Black High Clerk by Espinosa.
Speaker 1: By.
Speaker 2: Flynn. Hi Gilmore I Herndon in Cashman. I can eat. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close voting in US results.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes conceal. 801 passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You don't get many claps for votes anymore. Thank you. All right. We are moving to the Bloc votes. All other bills for introductions are now ordered published. Councilman, clerk, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final considerations? Consideration for final passage on the floor.
Speaker 4: Thank you, 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. 539 811 816. 812. 813. 814. 820. 821. 822. 800. 815. Eight 1724. 761 797.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved. And second, it councilmembers. Please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I or otherwise. This is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black. I Clark.
Speaker 4: II.
Speaker 2: Espinosa, i Flynn, i Gilmore. I Herndon I Cashman. I can eat. I knew.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Ortega, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please close the voting. Announce a results.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes. The resolution resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed on final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing for Council Bill 430 Changes on a classification of four Geneva Court and Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples’ Day.
Approves an ordinance designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples Day. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-14-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10032016_16-0430
|
Speaker 11: Okay, I'm on the second slide now. I think you've got numbers now, don't you. On your slides.
Speaker 1: No, no.
Speaker 11: Okay. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Just like this. Like less. Okay, great.
Speaker 11: So this is in Council District eight in the Stapleton neighborhood. I'm moving on to the next slide in the Stapleton statistical neighborhood, as I just said. The location slide shows you that it is in Southeast Stapleton at the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard and Havana Street across from Bluff Lake. You can't see Black Lake in this, but southwest of the Denver City jail. So moving on to the request, it is about 0.83 acres or 36,000 square feet. The property itself is vacant. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to redevelop the property into a financial services dental office and hairdresser land use. So the again request is to rezone from r emu 20 with waivers to master planned context, mixed use five stories. So moving on to the current waivers, they relinquish the right to some civic land uses, including gallery, museum, boarding school, university or college. Some commercial land uses including animal sales, banking and financial services, medical or dental office and clinic, and the right to construct offices over 2500 square feet or aggregated over 5000 square feet of office space. So moving on to the context, again, the existing zoning is arm you toe with waivers. There is a Stapleton general development plan in this for the South Area adopted in 2001. The land use is vacant. This property itself is surrounded by residential, small scale residential and some commercial under development now. So looking at the context map zoning, you see that there's marks five to the north, there's mmx5, which is the mixed use zone district where they're applying for to the east and to the south and then to the west. The RMU, Tony, with waivers. Moving on to land use. The surrounding land uses are a mix of low density multi-unit and single family. And the blue on the map that you see on this slide is a daycare center. I would point out that the to the south, the triangular parcel, there are two restaurants underdeveloped there. And just south of our subject site is the site where the new King Soopers is being developed. They're being built just. So looking at building foreman scale, this gives you an idea of the existing buildings in the area. The day care center is the top photo. The the grassy field is the vacant property we're talking about. The lower right photo is some townhomes and single family homes directly across Geneva court from our site. And then all the steel girders in the bottom picture are the King Soopers under under construction. So moving on to process, an informational notice of a complete application went out to City Council and all of the affected renos on March 24th. Our planning board held a hearing June 1st on this and was duly noted, duly noticed electronically with a sign posted on the property and planning board voted 9 to 1 to recommend approval. And then we were on to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on August 3rd. They passed this item on to the Council for this public hearing. These are the RINO's that were notified and to date we have no public comment. So review criteria, you're very familiar with consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the excuse me, public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. So the plans that apply to this property plan 2000 Blueprint Denver, the Stapleton Development Plan and the Stapleton redevelopment of the General Development Plan for the South Area adopted in 2001. So what I wanted to get into first was the sort of evolution of the location of this town center site. On the bottom left is the of the town center. Location side is the original location in the Stapleton Development Plan in 1995, which was going to be at 26th Avenue and Havana Street. Then by the time we did the GDP in 2001, the town center had moved slightly north and Martin Luther King, coming in sort of from the west in that middle picture, was going to divide and the town center was going to be in the center of that divided Martin Luther King. That was a little north of 26th Avenue. Then by the time we did, too, in 2002, when Blueprint Denver mapped the area, the town center had moved north to Martin Luther King and Havana Street, and Martin Luther King had not dipped south to connect to 26th Avenue like that center picture had envisioned. So there has been kind of an evolution of the location of the town center. I should note, though, that when we approved the zoning in 1995 for most of South Stapleton, the GDP very deliberately said the zoning should rule, and that's what we have adhered to since then. The GDP has not been amended. So I can't plan 2000. We have several strategies that we think this application conforms with telling us to promote the development of sustainable communities and centers of activities where shopping jobs, recreation schools are accessible to encourage quality infill development that offers opportunities for different densities and amenities to encourage development of focal points in communities where none exist, and to support development of neighborhood serving business centers. So I'm on to Blueprint Denver. Blueprint Denver land use concept is single family residential, and it's an area of change. The single family residential is described as primarily residential, with some complementary land uses such as parks and schools and some employment base that is definitely smaller than the housing base. Future ST Classification and Blueprint Denver. Martin Luther King is a mixed use arterial where we want to provide a high degree of mobility and. These streets are located in our higher intensity mixed use areas. 31st Avenue and Geneva are both under designated local streets. So I'm on to Stapleton Development Plan. This site is in District three in the Stapleton Development Plan. It is a to be an urban neighborhood, moderate density, significant natural amenities, as all of the Stapleton neighborhoods have, and strong ties to original Aurora as this is directly adjacent to Aurora on the east. So those key elements from that district, from the Stapleton Development Plan, that it's predominantly residential, that it has that district center, town center, that all Stapleton town centers have transportation elements and have either an elementary school or a neighborhood center of some kind . That's the one of the unique elements of this town center is that they they wanted us to develop urban design guidelines for the correctional facility on Smith Road as it's directly adjacent to the north of this area. So moving on to the GDP, the GDP and the mixed use zoning in the chapter, former Chapter 59 required general development plans. I'm sorry, the mixed use zoning required general development plans. So the GDP was based in the Stapleton Development Plan. There were 2155 acres in that general development plan, and it was generally shaped as most of Stapleton is, by the open space, walkable neighborhoods, mixed use town centers and neighborhood centers, regional retail and all different variety of land uses from residential all the way to industrial. And as I said before, specifically, the land use concept laid out in the general development plan, talked about the land uses may change and evolve over time, but would remain consistent with the mixed use zoning. So again, the mixed use zoning, the RSU 20 was put in place. It was primarily residential, but it was along some heavily traveled streets. And the mixed use concept of combining residential and neighborhood serving retail was present in the GDP. So I'm moving on to the land use slide from the general development plan and you see the red circle on the map there. It's a difficult map to read, but it was called residential on the general development plan. And then on the zoning map from the general development plan, we see that the site itself is the arm you tow with waivers zoning. And then the Street Network. I just wanted to point out again that the Street Network for as far as Martin Luther King Boulevard is did not develop the way the general development plan envisioned it. It did not split into two one ways, and it did not go just to the south and join 26th Avenue. It ended up actually pretty much being aligned east and west. So the master plan context under review criteria consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent master plan context is intended for large redeveloping areas that are redeveloping in phases over time. And as I said before, the range of land use is ranged from single unit multi-unit, mixed use, large town centers, small town centers, transit oriented development, commercial, all the way to industrial land uses as we are developing a whole new community and the master plan mixed use zoning is intended to provide that flexibility for these master plan communities and to respond to market opportunities over time. And the zoning regulations were written to support these phased developments, allowing a variety of developments so it does the master plan mixed use five story does promote new town centers with mixed use neighborhoods that are five stories in height. So with that, staff believes that all of the criteria are met, that this proposal is consistent with the adopted plans, that it furthers the uniformity of district regulations by moving into a standard zone district from a custom zone district that, in adopting in implementing our plans, were furthering the public health, safety and welfare, that the justifying circumstance of changed conditions has been met, and that this project is consistent with the neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. With that, staff recommends approval.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Miss Lucero, we have one speaker tonight. I'm going to ask that person to make their way forward. Tyler Carlson. You will have 3 minutes. Please introduce yourself.
Speaker 6: Telecast. I'm a principal at Evergreen Development, so I'm the applicants and don't have a formal presentation. Just want to thank Theresa and staff for her help working through the zoning process. She's been great. And I want to thank the neighbors who are here. We've been working collaboratively with them over the last several months to make sure that the project we're doing here, which is basically a second phase of this bridge town center, is beneficial to them and the rest of the surrounding neighborhood. The impetus behind this request is really to remove the Byzantine waivers that are on it, which preclude financial services and a dental office. And we have leases with both of those use categories and we are leasing to them specifically to keep less intense uses in this buildings or service oriented uses versus the heavy restaurant mix we have in the town center immediately south. So we think this is a win win. It also cleans up the zoning for the overall parcel. And I want to thank everyone for their time and here to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 6: I also live in Stapleton and I work in the city in county of Denver, too. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Three To start with you, the planning board. Nine The one who's the one and why?
Speaker 11: That was Don Elliott, and he had an issue with the location of the town center over time. He didn't.
Speaker 8: Believe that.
Speaker 11: Because Blueprint Denver didn't have a town center on the north side of Martin Luther King Boulevard. He didn't believe that this proposal conformed with Blueprint Denver.
Speaker 6: Okay. Fair enough. And could you go back to the slide where you showed the different zone codes?
Speaker 11: Yes, let me get to that.
Speaker 6: And my question is that parcel north of Martin Luther King, it has to zone codes, it has to the east, the x five, which is what the applicant is trying to go to, into the west. It has the RMU. And my question is why that is the case. You would think that that should be either or. And I'm curious why it's split.
Speaker 8: That's it.
Speaker 11: That's it?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 11: Why? There's Army 20 with waivers.
Speaker 6: Parcel to the north. That's two different zone codes. So they are amused on the west. And then the next five was the applicants trying to go to is to the east. And I don't know if you know why that that is the case.
Speaker 11: Why in 2010 maybe we didn't write down the Army 20 because it had waivers.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 11: And the one to the north, it doesn't have waivers because it had a site plan that already governed it. So we didn't want to. We also did not reason. Site plan or PBGC, as we call them, plan building groups, because we didn't want to have to take back our approval of a site plan that was already approved and use.
Speaker 6: And you said this, but I want to make sure that this is understood. The current zoning right now, the RMU does allow commercial uses.
Speaker 11: As it's mixed.
Speaker 6: Use and which commercial uses could and actually actually, Theresa Tyler, I can call you up because I'm sure you've studied this a lot more, Tyler, if you want to come up. Thank you, Theresa. What can the. You don't even have to come here right now. You could have currently bought the property and done what to it. Currently. Yeah. The both categories allow for commercial retail, both allow for drive thru uses, both allow for actually high density residential. The only difference between the two categories is the waivers which limit you preclude you from doing financial services, medical, dental, that list that Theresa provided . I don't know why in the world it is so weird, but anyways, it is what it is and we're trying to remove it. But yeah, you could. The exact same building we're trying to build, you could do the only difference, as I mentioned the neighbors earlier this evening is if this was to not pass the waiver stuck , that I have to backfill my leases with the dentist office in the bank with more restaurants because that's the only the other viable use category and we both don't want to do that. But that's more intense uses by their homes. Correct. And that's why I, I think sometimes when people see are they think residential and I appreciate you bring up that point entirely. One more for you. And since none of them have signed up to speak against, I am assuming and I we've met with them that they are comfortable moving forward. But if you wanted to Tyler one, I appreciate the conversations you've had talking with the neighbors and their concerns and I'll speak a little bit to that during the comment, if you just wanted to talk about how those conversations have gone forward, they've gone great. I mean, it's it's a great group of neighbors who have normal concerns that anyone would have I would have if this was happening across the street from my house. They haven't been relating to the rezoning. It's really related to access. And we've tried to work through that with traffic staff to varying degrees of success, you know, which is a challenge for all of us, because I think we'd all like maybe a different access program than engineering's allowing to occur. But again, that doesn't concern the rezoning. But we continue to you know, we're doing some additional buffers. We're asking to be planting some trees on their side of the street to help mitigate some of the impact. We did something similar when we did the Sprouts on Colfax, where we had similar commercial adjacencies right next to neighborhoods. So we're trying to be good neighbors. And I live not too far away so they know where to find me. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Herndon, Councilman Espinosa, this might be a question for either Teresa or the city attorney. And this question really wouldn't have mattered at the time that it came to plan, Candy. But now that we've approved the linkage fee, if this plan set were to go for permitting after January 1st, is this still covered by the Stapleton housing plan or does this now fall under under the linkage fee? And the reason why I'm asking is one of those waivers allows a substantial, considerable more amount of redevelopment on this means of development on this site than the 2500 or 5000 square foot limitation. You know, this is a nearly 40,000 square foot site, TMX five. That's this can be a far more substantial project in what was originally codified.
Speaker 11: I'll defer to the city attorney.
Speaker 4: Mr. President? David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney. The rezoning doesn't affect the fact that the language in the new linkage fee ordinance exempts out the entire Stapleton geographic area by virtue of the fact that it remains under the original development agreement adopted in the in the early 2000. So this rezoning doesn't affect the fact that the applicability of the linkage fee at all, that the the property remains exempt until the development agreement goes away.
Speaker 1: So why wouldn't we require somewhere in the process that that when we're granting so right now that the entire property parcel that's being redeveloped I mean re zoned has a 5000 square foot commercial limitation. Now obviously under residential, it could be substantially higher than that. But if it were to get developed commercially, every square foot of development in excess of 5000 square feet is in fact now not part of that redevelopment or.
Speaker 11: If it's an office, is it 5000 square feet?
Speaker 1: So any commercial use.
Speaker 11: Commercial uses don't have that.
Speaker 1: But now we're exempting that for the other waived uses that were so interesting. Yeah. Is that all your questions? Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions for members of council? A public hearing for council bill 430 is closed. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the questions and I appreciate the community from coming out. And this show that I have so few people coming out demonstrates Tyler's ability to work with the neighbors. I am so familiar with this area. If the U.S. went down a little further south, you would have seen my house, my first house at 26 in Fermanagh and 28 when I put down an offer on that. And I remember those signs that talked about the East Ridge Town Center coming and it's finally here and it's really exciting. Those pictures need to be really updated, particularly at the town center because it's coming. And I appreciate I'm excited to see the full parcel north of Martin Luther King as well. And I appreciate Tyler and Evergreen recognizing the community in the sense because as he said, he could have done more active uses where you could have had restaurants, where you could have things going on and like 9:00 at 10:00 at night, right across the street from the neighbors. But I think he recognized there's a way to do commercial as well as take the neighbors into consideration. I think that's a testament to you, Tyler, as well as you being a resident and being very familiar with the community. I appreciate neighbors coming through because we have spoken in length about their concerns, not particularly the zoning, but particularly on egress and access. And we've we're continuing to have those conversations. And I, I appreciate you being here. We're going to continue those conversations to make sure we can ensure that you can have your your concerns warranted, as well as making sure that the parcel that's going to be developed can be successful as well, too. So this is something that I, I certainly support. I hope my colleagues will. I, I just find those earlier photos very interesting. I couldn't imagine Martin Luther King dipping down to 26th Avenue now the way that is in those original when you think about how it is now. But this is something I certainly do support and I would encourage my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Councilman Herndon. I will say one thing about this, not particularly this development, but I expect Tyler to do well with the neighbors because and in 2012, with the former sunflower site and you mentioned it, but now the sprouts that's on Colfax in a food desert, that was one of the most complex issues in working with neighbors. And still to this day, the folks over there are really excited about that grocery store. So I hope this works out for the Stapleton neighborhood as well. We this has been moved in second. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Herndon. I Cashman. Kinney. Lopez knew Ortega. My black eye. Claire. Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Flynn I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I. Herndon, I guess again, I sorry, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close the voting and thus the results.
Speaker 2: One moment. Ten eyes. One day.
Speaker 1: Ten eyes. One constable for 30 has passed. Congratulations.
Speaker 2: Lopez did wear you and I vote yes. Okay. Well, clean it to a 12.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, no. 11 eyes. One.
Speaker 2: There should be 12 eyes when they.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes were missing one specimen. It passed, though we do know that. So Council Bill 430 has passed. Congratulations. There is no pre adjournment announcements except that we forgot a hat again for Councilman Clark. Come on. Actually, let's go. He should be wearing a cowboy hat because they lost the border war to the lamb. Can't see it. No other business before this body. We stand adjourned a.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for Geneva Court and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
Rezones property at Geneva Court and Martin Luther King Boulevard from R-MU-20 (Former Code: residential, mixed use) with waivers to M-MX-5 (master planned, commercial mixed use, 5 stories) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-3-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09262016_16-0859
|
Speaker 2: Whereas the City Council of Denver wishes to recognize Wallace and Wally again for his service to the citizens of the city and county of Denver, Denver's North High School, and the citizens of North Denver. And. Whereas, Wally's first Wally, first citizen of North Denver, died at age 90 on August 21st, 2016. And. WHEREAS, Wally, a Denver native, graduated from Denver's North High School and after graduating from the University of Denver, taught in the Denver public school system. And. Whereas, Wally had a lifelong dedication to education, and in particular, a commitment to furthering the education and literacy of students in the Denver Public School system and his alma mater. And. Whereas, Wally was a crucial founder of the Northside High School Alumni Association and its superb North Side High School Alumni Center, which contains an outstanding collection of records and memorabilia of alumni, faculty and staff of North High School, as well as that of its citizens, businesses and organizations of North Denver. And. Whereas, Wally was intimately involved in and advocated for renovation of the 1911 Northside High School, calling attention to its architectural treasures. And. Whereas, Wally was a moving force in preserving the Golden Lion House. And. WHEREAS, Wally was an instrument was instrumental in establishing the Northside High School Alumni Scholarship Fund, which currently awards 26 scholarships annually to graduates of North High School. And whereas, Wally was involved involved in and numerous civic activities benefiting the citizens of North Denver and in doing so displayed the ability to be an advocate while remaining friends with one and all. And. Whereas, Wally was affectionately known as Mr. North High School to the citizens of North Denver. Now, therefore, it be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that Wallace City and Council County of Denver are sorry that the Council of the City. Actually, I need to read the section one to make it official. Section one that the Council of the City and County of Denver to acknowledge Wallace and Wally Guinn for his public service, declares Saturday, October 1st, as Wally again day in Section two that the city, the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test, in effect, the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the Northside High School Alumni Association. Thank you. Your motion to adopt Councilman Espinoza. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation. 859859 be adopted. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of council. Espinosa. Yeah, I'm a. I just wanted to know. I mean, let people know. I have some comments, but I don't know. I don't want to overlap with the people that will be receiving the comment, I mean, the proclamation. So I'd like to follow up, but I do want to say that this Saturday, October 1st at 930 to 1130 at North High, the North High Alumni Association will be holding a celebration of all Higgins life at North High School. That's 2960 North Speer Boulevard. And there's a wonderful ride up in the North Denver Tribune and some other stuff available on Facebook that really if you if you don't if you don't know all, you really should find out about it. The library is named after his family at North High School, and I am one of those guys. I'm an import to North Denver, but I had the pleasure of campaigning. And Wally is a figure that you you without a doubt have to meet. And in the short my short experience with him, I can see by members of this that are in the audience today and other people that I have met through Wally, that he has had a tremendous and profound effect and position in our community, and it's been a real pleasure. In the short time that I got to be quite envious of you all for having it had been for having known him for for far longer than I did. It's a real loss for North Denver. Thank. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Espinosa. I Flynn. I Gilmore. I. Herndon. I caution. I can eat. I Lopez II Ortega. I Susman.
Speaker 7: I black.
Speaker 4: I Clark. I Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I Please close the voting or announce results.
Speaker 4: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes. Proclamation. 859 passes. Councilman Espinosa, do you have anybody you would like to bring up? Yes. To receive the proclamation, I'd like to call up members of the Northside High School Alumni Association. And not all are here, but Joe DeRose, Dan Scribner, Gail Marcus, Donna Lucero, Dave Parks, Mary Reynolds, Larry Tanenbaum and Isaac Solano and as well as the the principal at North Scott to receive the proclamation. Good evening. As we accept this with such gratitude and.
Speaker 5: Are just so thankful on behalf of the entire North High School.
Speaker 2: Community, my name is Scott Wolf. I'm the principal. I also live in the community.
Speaker 5: And when I started at the school four years ago, the first person I was told.
Speaker 2: I needed to talk to was Wally. Wally lives within the walls of North High School.
Speaker 5: He breathes North High School.
Speaker 2: He is the reason why North High School is what it is today, why we have.
Speaker 5: Made such tremendous growth and progress.
Speaker 2: As many of you know. North High School couldn't be what it is without our alumni. And he helped to be the father and the champion of all of that work with the scholarships that our students receive.
Speaker 5: They would not have the opportunities in college that they have without.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 5: To the instruction that our teachers are able to provide.
Speaker 2: With the involvement of the alumni. He was the one that really was the catalyst for.
Speaker 5: All of that energy.
Speaker 2: And enthusiasm and brought everyone together.
Speaker 5: There is there's nobody else who has moved north. High schools are the place that it is. The legacy that is north of over 100 years old.
Speaker 2: Has been carried.
Speaker 5: Forward by.
Speaker 2: Wally. And now, you know, his.
Speaker 5: Legacy will live on within all of us. But just want.
Speaker 2: To thank you all so, so much. This means a tremendous amount to North High School, but also to the.
Speaker 5: Entire North Denver community. Hi. Good afternoon. Good evening.
Speaker 2: Members of the City Council. I'll be very brief. My name is Isaac Solano, resident of City Council, District Number nine. Proud North High alum. I just wanted to thank Councilperson Espinosa and all of his staff for the work that he did in making this proclamation happen. So on behalf of North High School, thank you.
Speaker 5: I also my name is Jodie Rose. I'd also like to thank.
Speaker 2: Counsel for.
Speaker 5: Actually taking the time to do this for Mr.. Again, this is broader than just North High School. He is a graduate of the Class of 1944. That's the D Day class. Within two weeks of graduation.
Speaker 2: He was drafted and.
Speaker 5: Sent to the South Pacific, where he served for two years. He taught at Moree. When he got back he came, came back, went to do you.
Speaker 2: Taught at Maury and then he went back.
Speaker 5: Overseas, he taught in England for 15 years and in Germany for ten. So then he came back to Denver to retire and he was going to go to Oregon and he fell back in love with the city.
Speaker 2: And his high school.
Speaker 5: And it's because of him that we are all here because he started an alumni.
Speaker 2: Association that actually did exist from 1910 to 1919 and then was gone. His father was a class.
Speaker 5: Member.
Speaker 2: Of the.
Speaker 5: Class of 1919 and remembered.
Speaker 2: That the alumni did some good for them.
Speaker 5: And he thought that we ought to repeat that service. And so he enlisted his son, who enlisted the rest of us.
Speaker 2: And he is really.
Speaker 5: To be known for one.
Speaker 2: Thing, intentional acts of kindness. He was the most intentional, kind person I.
Speaker 5: Have ever had the privilege of knowing. And so it is with great honor that we are up.
Speaker 2: Here accepting this proclamation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. We have another proclamation this evening and it is proclamation 860. Matt Madam Councilman, Councilman Clark, will you please read proclamation 860?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Wallace M. "Wally" Ginn for his public service and declaring October 1 as Wally Ginn Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09262016_16-0801
|
Speaker 4: Assess Clean Energy within Denver. 797 Bill for an ordinance for any post contract between city and County of Denver. State of Colorado Department of Agriculture to purchase 300 Self Technology Court in Broomfield. From Safety, housing, education and homelessness. 801 April for Gordon's Disney in the second Monday of October each year as indigenous people stay great.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Is this your last opportunity to call out an item? Council on an assessment. Will you please make the motions for us this evening?
Speaker 7: I'd be happy to, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Right now I'll do a recap. Under resolutions, we have Council Bill 72, 73, 79. All for a comment from Councilman Flynn. Resolution 778 called out by Councilman Herndon for a comment. No bills for introductions. Call it out. There will be one or two bills on final court out for a vote by Councilwoman Ortega. 757 758 And there is no pending called out, I believe. That said, I live down the road. Make sure any other. Okay. Resolution. Okay. Thank you. So, Councilman Flynn, do you mind if we pull up? 72, 87, three.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples’ Day.
Approves an ordinance designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples Day. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-14-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09262016_16-0782
|
Speaker 2: 757 758 And there is no pending called out, I believe. That said, I live down the road. Make sure any other. Okay. Resolution. Okay. Thank you. So, Councilman Flynn, do you mind if we pull up? 72, 87, three. You don't need a vote. You just need a comment. Correct.
Speaker 6: I have comment and a request. So you can do all three at once.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Thank you. We'll pull up 72, 73, 79 for comment. Councilman Flynn, go ahead.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. These are three contracts that began under the $500,000 threshold that requires that they come to council. And two of them with Jeff Sadow and Martin and Martin came up. We they were approved in June of 2015. There was one amendment in September, apparently, that didn't have to come to council because it was still under the threshold, but it was within $20,000 of the threshold. And now we're doubling the amount of the contract in just a year. And then the third contract with Davey Tree with Parks and Rec. I don't know if anybody here from Parks who can comment thank you. Can comment on this. This one was $499,000, $1,000 under the threshold, and now we're adding $100,000. And, Mr. President, we've talked about this before, and I don't know how to avoid this, but I just want to put it out there that when we get contracts for amendment and they had been issued just under the threshold where they should have come to us in the first place. It kind of bothers me that we didn't get to have any purview over it before, and it's sort of like the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. What choice do we have now that they're in the field? And I don't think that's fair to this council. But what I would like to request is for public works in Parks and Rec, at least to give us a a list of the work orders that have taken place under the Sardo and the Martin and Martin contract and under the Davey Tree. Davey tree is an increase in scope, I believe as well, so that we can track the work orders because these are on call contracts and we can get a better sense of the work that's being done under them. And maybe answer the question why were these not scoped properly? This the two engineering contracts on call are just over a year old, and if we're already increasing them by double, that raises a question where they should have been should have been that amount in the first place and come to us. So thank you, Mr. President, to all I have.
Speaker 2: Okay. Would you like public works and do you want to get that via email or would you like to have them come up now.
Speaker 6: Unless they feel an urgent need to respond to that? I really don't. I would just like to get the information and maybe send it to the whole council.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm going to ask. Thank you. Parks and Public Works. Please send that to the entire council so we can look over that. Thank you. Okay, let's pull up. 778. Councilman Herndon has a comment. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and J.F. Sato and Associates, Inc. for on-call engineering services.
Amends a contract with J.F. Sato and Associates, Inc. to add an additional $480,000 (new total contract amount of $960,000) in contract capacity for on-call structural engineering services throughout the City. No change in contract term (201522313). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-17-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 9-15-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09262016_16-0778
|
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm going to ask. Thank you. Parks and Public Works. Please send that to the entire council so we can look over that. Thank you. Okay, let's pull up. 778. Councilman Herndon has a comment. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 5: I want to to invite somebody up from Catholic Charities if they're in the chambers. And I believe I see Larry in the back, if you want to come to the podium. I just I didn't have the opportunity.
Speaker 2: To come to committee for this, but I wanted to point this out. 778 is an agreement between the city and county of Denver and Catholic Charities for another homeless shelter. And two things I wanted to point out about it. One, it's in District eight. I think as we are trying to house those who do not have housing, those are the surrounding districts need to be a part of that as well.
Speaker 5: And district data is no stranger to shelters. The we have the emergency shelter has been in my district for a while but.
Speaker 2: Even more I appreciate about this. It's more than just housing those without homes. It's also about helping those. And so I want to invite Larry from Catholic Charities just to take a quick minute to describe how this shelter is different.
Speaker 5: And it's something I'm really excited about.
Speaker 2: And I appreciate the city's partnership with Catholic Charities in making this a reality. So I wanted.
Speaker 6: To give you an opportunity to speak to it.
Speaker 5: Briefly. Thank you, Councilman Hernan, and thank you, City Council. We've been working with the Office of Economic Development here at the City Councilman Herndon, a number of other Councilman Flynn in order to try and provide additional shelter for and obviously Councilman Brooks for homeless women in the city of Denver, which there is a significant need for and a growing need, unfortunately. And one of the problems that we've seen is in trying to help some of these women exit homelessness. We're running into a real struggle, a more difficult struggle than with some of the men. So in this new shelter that will be building and developing over the next several months, we're going to add a new program that hopefully will allow these women to get a leg up on exiting homelessness by giving them an additional period of recovery from substance abuse and the homelessness that they're currently experiencing, where all they have to do is come into the shelter and be safe and sober and let us take care of them for 30 days while they recover from what's been going on. And what will what we're hoping to have happen is that in doing so, we'll see a much greater success rate in helping these women exit homelessness. And today, that is a very broad swath of women that were experiencing homelessness due to three primary reasons the loss of a job increase in housing and a break up of a relationship. And when that happens. And they find themselves on. The Street's very bad things happened to them. And now getting out of that becomes a real, you know, downward spiral. So this new program in shelter, with the help of the Council and the Office of Economic Development and Denver's Road Home and Bennie Milner has been very helpful in working through this, will hopefully allow us to begin to increase the number of women who'll be able to exit homelessness successfully. So your vote and support tonight would be very helpful in helping us get there and helping these women in a service that is greatly needed right now in the city of Denver. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: And Mr. Perez, I just wanted to let I know I saw a lot of all councilmembers attended, but certainly a great model for success. And I hope it's something as we prove it's successful, you know, shelter and services in one location, it certainly can be replicated. So kudos to Catholic Charities and Ed for helping with the finances to make this a reality.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Herndon. I think we have Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Yes. I have a couple of questions for you. Can you tell us how many shelter beds this will provide? How many women can be served at one time?
Speaker 5: Sure. Currently, we serve about 100 women at the Holy Rosary at Samaritan House in partnership with Denver Road Home. We're operating a shelter on Pecos that serves somewhere around 100, 220, 130 women a night. That building is going to cease to be available to us as a shelter. And so the Smith Road Facility, which we are purchasing and renovating, will allow us to serve 150 women every night, which will be an additional 30 women on average. And then we have other facilities that we're bringing online over the course of the next several months and year that will give us group home capacity as well to help these women exit homelessness.
Speaker 10: Right. So I wanted to ask a question about. How the outreach is happening that will target the people who the women who actually need the services. I walk Sloan's Lake every morning and there's an elderly woman who literally sleeps under the bridge and gets up and has her own cart and has been there for a number of years. And, you know, I know that historically our street outreach has primarily concentrated on the downtown, but we have some of our chronic homeless that, you know, have have left the downtown. They're in our parks. They're they're kind of hidden a lot more so now. And my hope is that these are some of the very people, because when they end up in our emergency room or in our detox facility, it actually costs us a lot more than it is to house them. And so I'm just curious how that piece of it is going to be handled so that it's not just people who are downtown.
Speaker 5: Right. Well, thank you for the question, first of all. And secondly, I would tell you that we work with Denver's Road Home on an outreach program. Since we opened December of 14, 2014, since the very day that we opened the first Holy Rosary Women's Shelter at Samaritan House. We have not had an empty bed, and many nights we wind up moving chairs and tables out of conference rooms so that we can facilitate these women. I'm happy to say, unfortunately, that we've never turned a woman away. I say unfortunately, because that means that, you know, there are so many out there that need help, but we're always there to help them and we will put them up no matter when they come in to the facility. The Smith Road facility, you know, is a bust in facility. There's no walk up. So these women will gather at Samaritan House where we provide a hot meal in the evening. Then the women that can fit into the Samaritan House shelter at on Lawrence, of course, will stay there and the rest are then bussed out to the facility on Smith Road. But no walkup traffic is allowed out there from an outreach standpoint. You know, we do there is a street traffic network that these women know about. And as soon as we open up new beds, they're immediately filled. And the other thing, Councilman Ortega, it's important to point out is that we have an extended stay program that once they are sober and are able to, you know, recognize their plight and reach out for help to get out of it. We have a four month program that we move these women through very successfully. Once they get past that first 30 day period, we're seeing a success rate in the high 80th percentile who live with stable income. Unfortunately, housing is a bit more of a struggle because of the increase in housing in Denver. So I'm also happy to tell you that Denver Catholic Charities has 27 apartment buildings that we manage, and now we're working with HUD to develop a housing first initiative for the homeless that will allow them to get first in our waiting list for our newest property, which is over on South Federal and Councilman Flynn's district. It's called Golden Spike. And we're setting aside 40 units for women and homeless people in general who are exiting homelessness will then be able to move up on that waiting list. The actual outreach, though, is done through a network of street communication and then also with Denver Road Home, where they send people out to to find these people that are homeless. And we can always expand that and try and do a better job in the outreaches of the city.
Speaker 10: Well, I just want to commend Catholic Charities for their efforts in moving this project forward. We absolutely know the need is incredible, and I'm sure the women just can't wait for the facility to open. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega and Councilman Herndon. Okay. All right. We can bring up Bill. Council Bill seven 5778 on final. And Councilwoman Ortega wanted to put this on for Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put council bill 757 and 758 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Loan Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Catholic Charities and Community Services of the Archdiocese of Denver, Inc. (doing business as Catholic Charities Denver) to provide acquisition financing for a new women's homeless shelter located at 6240 Smith Road.
Approves a 35-year loan agreement with Catholic Charities and Community Services of the Archdiocese of Denver, Inc. (doing business as Catholic Charities Denver) in the amount of $1 million from Community Development Block Grant funds structured as a performance loan to provide acquisition financing for a new women’s homeless shelter located at 6240 Smith Road in Council District 8 (OEDEV-201630186-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-17-16. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-14-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09262016_16-0757
|
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega and Councilman Herndon. Okay. All right. We can bring up Bill. Council Bill seven 5778 on final. And Councilwoman Ortega wanted to put this on for Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put council bill 757 and 758 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. As a bloc.
Speaker 2: As a bloc, yes.
Speaker 7: Okay. I move that council vote 757 at 758 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. I need a second and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be very brief. As you all know, I've been very vocal about this particular project. This is the bond financing in the land acquisition slash condemnation proceedings, if needed, for some of the properties that will be acquired as part of the plot to Park Hills Stormwater Project. And I have not supported it for lots of different reasons, which I'm not going to elaborate on tonight, so I will be voting no on both of these bills. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other comments for members of council? Madam Secretary?
Speaker 4: Raquel ORTEGA.
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 7: SUSSMAN My black eye.
Speaker 4: CLARK All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 4: Flynn, i. Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman. No. Can each. Lopez.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Ortega. Oh, sorry, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Kosovo already announced results.
Speaker 4: Nine eyes, three knees.
Speaker 2: Nine eyes, three three nays council bill 757 758. Do pass. Okay, we are ready for the block votes. All other bills for introductions are now. Order publish council in session. Will you please put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills for final consideration on final passage on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President, I move that the following rosaries resolutions be adopted. 786 787 751 781 796 807 782 783 788 789 791 778 784. And I think that's a.
Speaker 2: Do we get them all? Madam Secretary. Great. Okay. It has been moved in saying it. Council members, please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this was your last chance to call out an item. So I just look down, make sure. Okay. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Cashman. I can eat Lopez i Ortega I Susman. I black eye Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I your.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon, i.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I don't scare us like that.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 2: Please. Yeah. 12 eyes. The resolutions and bills from consideration do pass. Okay. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 549, changing the zoning classification for a 3201 Walnut Street acquire public hearing for Council Bill 551 Changing the zoning zoning classification for 444402 Umatilla Street and require public hearing for Council Bill 597 changing the
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing the issuance of City and County of Denver, Colorado, for and on behalf of the Wastewater Management Division of its Department of Public Works, Wastewater Enterprise Revenue Bonds, Series 2016, for the purpose of financing the cost of acquiring, improving and equipping the storm drainage and sanitary sewerage facilities of the City; providing for the pledge of certain wastewater revenues for the payment thereof; and making other provisions relating thereto.
Authorizes the issuance of City and County of Denver, for and on behalf of the Wastewater Management Division of its Department of Public Works, Wastewater Enterprise Revenue Bonds Series 2016 in a principal amount not to exceed $116 million to fund storm drainage projects and for costs of bond issuance. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-30-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09262016_16-0549
|
Speaker 2: If you are here to answer any questions only when your name is called, come to the podium and state your name and one of the council members and let them know that you're available for questions. Speakers will have 3 minutes to speak unless in other speakers, his or her time, which will result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must director comments to the members of Council. Please refrain from profanity or obscene obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual personal attacks. Councilman Sussman, will you please put Council Bill 549 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President, I, I move the council bills. 549 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. I need a second. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 549 is open. May we have work?
Speaker 4: Good evening, Council President, Members of City Council Brian Winterberg of Community Planning and Development here to present rezoning 2016 i00046 at 3201 Walnut Street from I am three you are to to see annex five you go to the subject site is located in council district seven. Zooming in it is in the five point statistical neighborhood. And here we see our specific location. Our site is one half of a block that is along Walnut Street, down by 32nd Avenue and 33rd Street. And it is located one half mile from the 30th. And Blake Station is an area that will seem very familiar to you. Now.
Speaker 2: Did you say councilors six, seven or nine.
Speaker 4: Tells us this is nine.
Speaker 2: Oak? Yes, please.
Speaker 7: Clear. Point of order, Mr. President, if we can. We've been trying to spread the word to staff. We are no longer following along with you. So can you please tell us when you're changing sides? And don't assume we can't see a cursor or anything, so just let us know when you're.
Speaker 4: Changing, please. Okay. So are you viewing the current slide that I'm seeing now which says request in the upper right hand corner? Okay.
Speaker 2: There we go. We're on it now.
Speaker 4: Okay. The property is 1.15 acres. It is comprised of one ownership parcel and features, one structure ranging in height from 1 to 2 stories. And it currently includes an industrial user. The property owner is requesting a rezoning to facilitate redevelopment of the site consistent with the proposed zone district. So the request before you is to rezone from I am 302 to see Annex five or to maintaining the billboard use overlay and no billboards exist on the subject site. Just a reminder that the approval of a rezoning is not the approval of a specific development proposal. So I'll move on to the next one. So the request is to see Annex five, which is in the urban center, a neighborhood context, a mixed use zoned district, allowing buildings of a maximum height of five storeys with the billboard use overlay and onto existing context, zoning, land use and building from scale onto existing context zoning so we can see our subject site is called out in imx302. We can see some IMX 302 located just to the south and the west. But we do see a consistent corridor of see Amex five and see Amex five. You are to applied along the Walnut Street corridor to the north and to the south. Important to note that the IMX three zone district currently allows both the general and industrial building forms moving on to existing land use. You can see that our subjects that is called out as industrial, the purple color, and we can see a pretty consistent corridor of industrial uses along the Walnut Street corridor, but generally trending towards multifamily and commercial, moving to the north towards Blake Street and of course acknowledging that the entirety of the 30 and Blake Station area is generally trending away from heavy industrial to a mix of uses and moving on to building form and scale. You can see that our subject site is called out in the upper left hand corner existing industrial user. We can see a lack of curb and gutter at the subject site. And then looking to the surrounding environs, we see a number of industrial users as well as adaptive reuse of existing structures. Moving on to process the following. Eight registered neighborhood organizations were notified throughout the process, and the application has received one letter of support from the Reno Neighborhood Association, as well as one letter of support from a neighboring property owner. No other R.A. Communications have been received. Moving on to process. In terms of the public hearings, we did send notice of receipt of application to Arnault's and City Council on May 1st. On July 20th, the Planning Board recommended approval to City Council 8 to 0, and on August 16, the Lands Transportation and Infrastructure Committee moved the bill forward to City Council. And we sent notice of today's City Council public hearing to Arnault's and City Council as well as signage was properly posted on the property on September 2nd. Now on to the review criteria. Of course, you're familiar now with the five, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. We have two citywide plans as well as one small area plan here that will seem very familiar to this body after last week's hearing to adopt Hite amendments to the 38th and Blake Station area. So the first adopted plan is comprehensive plan 2000. And we find that the rezoning is consistent with comprehensive plan 2000 as seen here and articulated in your staff report. Moving on to Blueprint Denver, the city's land use and transportation plan, you can see that our subject site is called out as a mixed use concept land use as well as within an area of change. We can also see that Walnut Street is called out as a residential collector, and these are streets that primarily balance mobility and land access, generally shaped by the mix of uses along the corridor. So we do find that it is consistent. Theresa on the subject site to see x five both implementing these land use recommendations, area of change as well as mobility recommendations in a pedestrian friendly building form. Now on to the northeast downtown neighborhoods plan. So, again, an area very familiar to you now. We can see that our subject site is called out in the ballpark, small area with urban design recommendations as seen here. So sighting buildings for a consistent street edge with parking in the rear, linking buildings to the streets through grounds to reactive uses, transparency and entrance requirements, all recommendations that are not currently implemented by the general and industrial building forms in the I am x three zone district. You can see their subject site is also called out with a mixed use industrial land use category, that kind of mustard yellow color. So recognizing that a mix of light industrial uses are appropriate to be mixed with more urban residential uses, where pedestrian access, of course, is still important. Now in terms of building heights, we can see that our subject site is called out in the pink category, which is a five storey recommended maximum building height, and again, a building height that has been reconfirmed through the recently adopted 38th and Blake Station area plan amendments. So a very consistent process moving forward. Based upon our review of the five criteria, we do find that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. Next, moving on to uniformity of district regulations, we find that the rezoning to see Annex five or two will result in a uniform application of some district standards, as well as further the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans. Moving on to justifying circumstances, we can see, as stated in your application, that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that warrants the rezoning. We can see a number of change conditions, first in our adopted plans recommending a redevelopment of the area and recognizing an evolving character which we again see realized today as redevelopment in the area is actually signaling an evolution in the environs, as well as the anticipated redevelopment of the National Western Stock Show. Again, as an influence on the subject site, along with the introduction of commuter rail transitioning to a more transit oriented development context. Now in terms of consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent, we find that the rezoning meets the intent of the urban center neighborhood. Context Description The purpose statement for the c m zone districts and the specific content statement for C max five. So based upon our review of the five criteria, we do find that the rezoning meets L five and do recommend approval and happy to answer any questions as well as the applicant is here tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have one speaker. Bill Park you.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Bill Parkhill. I'm at 631 high in Denver and I'm the applicant and the owner of this property, and I'm here for questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions? By members of council. Councilman. Espinosa Yeah. Ryan Did you say that this is consistent with the adopted stationary plan or and the new incentive zoning? Is it does it fall in that area that we just passed?
Speaker 4: Great question. So while you're very familiar with this this general area of the city, our subject site was not within the plan Height Amendment area because the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan already recommends a five storey maximum building height for the subject site. The process reconfirmed that recommended building height. So essentially there was nothing to amend the Heights recommendations in northeast. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Great. Councilman Flynn. Oh, that's great. Okay. Any other questions by members of council? You know, I'm going to bring up Bill Park. You'll. Again. And just you said this in committee, but for the edification of folks who were not at committee. What are you planning to do in this?
Speaker 6: First of all, let me say go bust.
Speaker 2: We about four of us. Appreciate that.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. So our current plan is for an adaptive reuse.
Speaker 5: Of the building to maintain the character of the building. However, part of that building requires lifting of the roof to above the 45 foot height limit. We are currently negotiating with a climbing gym, so we would you know.
Speaker 6: Our intention is a rock climbing gym.
Speaker 5: Which requires this high portion of the roof. So we're hopeful that with this height amendment, we're going to be.
Speaker 2: Able to integrate kind of.
Speaker 6: A higher portion of the roof.
Speaker 5: With this.
Speaker 6: Lower house and kind of keep that rhino type of character.
Speaker 2: Yeah. You don't any retail at all. I'm sorry. Are you doing any retail at all?
Speaker 6: There will be a kind of kind of a retail frontage. The C-Max Zone requires obviously some transparency and some windows along that frontage.
Speaker 5: And the existing warehouse.
Speaker 6: Doors will be converted to glass openings. And we'll have some retail there.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Thank you. Any other you can have a seat. Any other comments from members of council? This concludes a public hearing for council. 549 is now closed. Comments by members of council. I call on myself. I represent this district. Mr. Park, you and I have talked a lot, especially dealing with the station area 30th and Blake Station area high amendments. And this change allows us to really create this area of living, working and playing. There's a lot of job opportunities here. There's a lot of new apartments and hopefully condos that will be gone up in the area. But this allows for the neighborhood to have a place to to play and enjoy. And so there's nothing like this idea that we've seen thus far. And I am it's consistent with all the other plans, and I am supportive of this seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, Rocha.
Speaker 4: Black, i Clark, i. Espinosa, i. Flynn, I Gilmore, i. Herndon, i.
Speaker 7: Cashman, I can eat.
Speaker 4: Lopez, Ortega, Sussman, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Please cause voting announce results.
Speaker 4: 12 Ice.
Speaker 2: 12 Ice. One Abstention. Oh 12 Eyes Council Bill 549 has passed. Thank you. Congratulations. Councilman Sussman, we please put Council Bill 551 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3201 Walnut Street.
Rezones property at 3201 Walnut Street from I-MX-3, UO-2 to C-MX-5, UO-2 in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-9-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 8-16-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09262016_16-0597
|
Speaker 4: 12 eyes.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes. Council Bill 551 has passed. Congratulations. Okay. Councilwoman Sussman, last. Bill, will you please put council bill 597 on the floor?
Speaker 7: With pleasure, Mr. President. I move the bill 597 to be placed on file consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. And second it the public hearing for Council Bill 597 is now open. May we have the staff report? Ms.. Lucero. Yes. All right.
Speaker 11: Final bill for tonight is one reason this is actually the final rezoning and Berkeley Annex, which is cause for celebration. It is approximately 99 Monica Street Parkway from oh one to G mix three general urban mixed use three story. It is in this portion. I'm on the illustrative Berkeley Annex plan. The Purple Circle is the illustrated area where we are talking about this evening. And now I'm on the Buckley Annex history slide from 1970 to 2005. This property was part home of the Air Reserve Police Personnel Center and Defense Financing and Accounting Services, which had 3000 employees. And that was the sole use on this 70 acre property. In 1993, the Lowry reuse plan was created, 2000 Comprehensive Plan was created in 2000 to Blueprint. Denver was adopted, and then in 2005, the Air Force decided to close these facilities. So a lot of our plans didn't anticipate that the Buckley Annex redevelopment plan was completed by Lowry Redevelopment Authority, and it did provide a framework for land use and transportation on the property. The property was officially vacated in 2010 and turned over in 2012 to the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. And then in 2013, the city did excuse us. This city did approve a general development plan for the property and a minor amendment later on. So we are north of Bayard Avenue. I'm on location slide now north of Baird Avenue, south of First Avenue, spanning Lowry, the extension of Lowry Boulevard and east of the Monica Street Parkway . Onto the request. The property is about eight acres. It is currently vacant. I just want to point out that we finally have a 2016 aerial. You'll see some of the building already going on in Buckley Annex on this slide and you probably won't see it on the rest of my slides, which are 2014 aerials. So the property is currently vacant. Again, the property owner is Lowry Redevelopment Authority and they propose to rezone the property and then sell it for development. The general urban context characterized by multi-unit and a variety of building forms, low scale commercial and added and intended to promote safe, active pedestrian scaled areas. This one zone district that's currently here was carried over in 2010, as it is, is an old institutional zone district and was left in place kind of as a holding to leave the property and sort of holding because we were at the time updating the library plan. So it never was changed. The maximum height is 75 feet if you're within 175 feet of a protected zone district. And the only uses allowed were residential care and shelter for the homeless civic uses or outdoor recreation or entertainment, and a few industrial uses like telecommunications, oil and gas production or wholesale trade. So moving on to existing context, zoning, the site has been surrounded this piece by piece with new zone districts. In Berkeley Annex you see the urban single unit to the North Grange. Three are General Urban Rowhouse three Story to the East. The Jim U. Five We just approved not too many months ago for affordable housing to the south south of Bayard Avenue is our to a with waivers that is a combination of seven story towers and two story townhomes in front of it. And then, of course, across the street is Chris Moore Park, which has an open space zoning next land use. Under existing context, the site is showing up as vacant multi-family residential to the South Park to the west. And this gives you an idea of these pictures under building form and scale of what's being built in the on on the on the annex. We see on the upper right some new single family homes, some townhomes under construction on the lower right. The seven story towers are south across Bayard on the bottom. The site itself, which is vacant. And then, of course, Chris Moore park above that on the left. So and summary of our review. And this is interesting. This is just the city agency review, which is summarized in your in your staff report. And all of the city agencies did recommend approval of this. So under our public notice, the notice of complete application went out in May. Planning Board public hearing was August 3rd. So with a vote of 7 to 0, planning board did recommend approval. The Land Use Committee heard this on August 16th and did pass it on to council. These are the registered neighborhood organizations that were notified today. We have seven letters of support that should have been in your packet and one letter today received today that was in opposition to this rezoning that I did forward on to your staff to be forwarded to you. So review criteria slide consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations furthering the public health, safety and welfare justifying circumstances. Consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. Under criteria, the plans that apply to this property are Denver. Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000, the Lowry Reuse Plan Blueprint, Denver and the Buckley Annex General Development Plan. The consistency with current plan is detailed in your staff report. I'm on the blueprint. Denver's slide land use concept was employment because at the time Blueprint Denver was adopted, the Air Force was still occupying the property and we thought they would stay. So there is it's it was designated an area of employment, but also an area of change, because we thought maybe someday there would be some change and the Air Force might not stay on to street. Classification Board Avenue is an undesignated local. Monica Street Parkway is a residential arterial where we want to emphasize mobility over access. First Avenue to the north is a collector. Monica Parkway is also an enhanced transit corridor where we want to encourage transit, supportive land uses and practices like shared parking and things like that. So the Lowry reuse plan adopted in 93 and then re adopted with current plan in 2000, again, we didn't anticipate that the Air Force would leave. And so there is very little guidance in those plans to the current circumstances. So the Buckley Annex General Development Plan, this is in the neighborhood center west sub area. And this is a sub area that is intended to to respect the Monaco Parkway with a 35 foot setback, preserves some of the existing stormwater basins along Monica. A nonresidential would be located on Lowry Boulevard, facing Lowry Boulevard and not facing the parkway. And there would be no secondary signage on park. Monica. The land uses were determined to be mixed use residential retail office or civic. Maximum height of five stories, although three stories were recommended along Monica Parkway and then building signs. Setbacks on Monica Parkway from the Crest Moore neighborhood were also included in the GDP and build to lines again would be from Lowry Boulevard, not for Monica. So the neighborhood context. So with that, Steph believes that the criteria for adoption for the adopted consistency with adopted plans is met. I am now on to review criteria for with this, which is consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. Again, the neighborhood context is general urban characterized by multi-unit residential in a variety of building forms. Low scale commercial embedded in residential areas. Residential uses primarily located on local or arterial streets. Commercial located along mixed use and arterial or main streets generally in a grid pattern with detached sidewalks. Buildings typically oriented to shallow, shallow setbacks on the primary street. And balancing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle use. So staff believes this zone district complies with that. And the zone we already did. So the specific intent of the DMX three zone district. It's a mixed use zone district with a maximum height of three stories. Acting as an active, pedestrian, skilled area embedded within neighborhoods now believes that criteria is met. So again, do believe that the this proposal conforms with the adopted plans, that it furthers the uniformity of district regulations, and that by implementing our plans furthers the public health , safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances is changed conditions. The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to a degree that it's in the public interest to to further redevelop or recognize the changed character of the area. With the redevelopment of the Hall Berkeley Annex, this is a changed condition with the closure of the Air Force facilities. So staff believes this the changed conditions is the appropriate justifying circumstance and we didn't really talk about the context. So with all of that, staff recommends approval that believes all of the criteria have been met.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Lucero. We have two speakers this evening. The first one has already jumped up. Mr. Marcus Faulkner. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Good evening. Council President. Council members. My name is Marcus Partner 7290 East First Avenue, Denver. I'm a consultant to the Library Redevelopment Authority. I'm actually only our only speaker tonight. Dave Andrews from LRA and John Putnam of our legal team are here for questions. Tricia did such a thorough job on this. I just want to highlight a few things, particularly maybe a little snapshot on this Monaco parcel. I want to get at why we arrived or how we arrived at GMAC's three. Interesting to note in all of our presentations and actually in the GDP, this has been shown as a C-Max five zone district, a more intense five story development. So this is effectively a down zoning from a planning component of a five story to a three story. The reason we ended up here is actually part of a community collaborative process, particularly with Chris, more neighbors across the street. We work with the Cress Moore Park second filing, looked in the park, stood in the park, actually hung balloons to show the height of a five storey building and how it might impact the park and their views across Monaca and really worked with them to understand the impact on that. We also made a commitment to the community, all of the neighborhoods surrounding this site, that we would not exceed 800 residential units on Boulevard one. We agreed to do an RFP to the development community first and actually come back with this final rezoning that actually is tailored to the market and the planning principles. To our great surprise and great benefit, we went to the market and we found what we believe will be hopefully a for sale condo development. Three story on this site. We think it is a terrific compromise for the community, a great project and a great culmination to the Boulevard one. So we. Believe, for all the reasons Teresa covered today, that we certainly have consistency with adopted plans and that this three story gimmick is the right solution for this site. And I could share many more about the 60 plus community meetings that we've had. But certainly, as you can see, the lack of fanfare means that this has been a community collaborative process. The last thing I'd like to just mentioned in passing, Teresa noted that this is the last rezoning of Boulevard One. It is actually the last rezoning of the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. This is our 61st and final rezoning application to effectuate the building of 1800 acres. We did our first rezoning in 1995 with Councilwoman Flowback, and I think now we have 10,000 residents, 5000 residential units, and 35,000 people work, live or play on a daily basis in Lowry . It is certainly pretty remarkable. And we want to thank all of you for your leadership and support on this, probably to note, because of what we've been focusing on, maybe our lasting legacy is there are 1082 permanent affordable housing units at Lowry. So with all of that, we'd certainly appreciate your support on this zoning tonight. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. Mr. Faulkner and John Putnam. Good evening, Mr. President and council members. My name is John Putnam.
Speaker 5: I am an attorney.
Speaker 2: For the Library Redevelopment Authority. I'm here.
Speaker 5: For questions.
Speaker 2: And my address is 1675 Broadway. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That ends our speakers questions for members of council. All right. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 10: I just noticed that you brought a schematic and wanted to know if you would share that with us.
Speaker 5: I will be happy to. Councilman Ortega, this is the site Boulevard one. Obviously, we are talking about this parcel today, the Monaco parcel, both sides of Lowry Boulevard. This is the rest of the 70 acres of Boulevard one. This second schematic, which was really just an interesting note, these are the 61 rezonings, the different zoning clarify classifications on the entire site, including now the eight different zone districts in Boulevard one.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 5: You bet. And we held them behind the camera.
Speaker 2: I think we I think we may have got you on that camera there. Okay, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Theresa, I just have a.
Speaker 6: Couple of clarification questions. My OCD brain kind of rebelled at the address on this. 99 Monaco. 99 Monaco would be on the west side of this.
Speaker 11: I know.
Speaker 5: But how did it get that address?
Speaker 6: Because in the assessor record, it's an entirely different address. I just wanna make sure we're not making a mistake.
Speaker 11: Raise this at committee. It was given to the applicant. Write it in with that. I have to confess that stuff. I was paying more attention to the legal description to make sure that was correct.
Speaker 6: That's what Matt and.
Speaker 11: I was to the address. It should have been something like 98. Yes, approximately, given the side of the street that it's on. So that was a staff.
Speaker 6: I may have to vote no because of that. I'm struggling. The other the other issue was you mentioned that that you received one letter of in opposition and but I couldn't find it in my email today. Can you tell us who that was from Margaret?
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 11: It was a Weissmann. I don't remember her first name.
Speaker 5: It was from Michelle Weissman, I believe actually a resident of Boulevard One. Her question was to be sure that there were proper setbacks in this rezoning to actually protect the mountain views looking to the West. Of course, we are complying with the underlying setbacks, but it was a request of the LRA to have more ample setback.
Speaker 6: An additional setback than what we're providing.
Speaker 5: Here. Well, she suggested 10 to 15 feet. I apologize. I don't know the setback in this zone district.
Speaker 6: Thank you. At that time, Theresa, unless you have more that that would be all I had.
Speaker 11: I was just going to say that the setback along Monaco, per the GDP, is 35 feet, but there is an additional 45 feet. From.
Speaker 6: Okay. 45 feet along Monaco, in addition.
Speaker 11: Actually, Dave is reminding me that it is when you combine everything. It's one.
Speaker 6: 100. I read that in the staff report. 100 watts is set back on the east side then that that the opponent was was talking about.
Speaker 11: If you'll give me a moment to get my zoning code.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm going to let Councilwoman Susman chime in here. She wanted.
Speaker 7: Well, I was just going to talk to Kevin. And Councilwoman Black had also raised this in committee about the 99 Monaco Parkway. And in fact, it's probably going to have an address on Lowry Boulevard, which isn't there yet. So it was probably a, you know, conundrum, conundrum for the applicant about what the address is.
Speaker 6: So I should just grin and bear it.
Speaker 2: Yes. Sure. I would actually like to add some give you a little level of comfort. It actually says approximately 99, Monaco, which is this this is approximately 99. And it's a marketing move. Right. You think you're moving into the park?
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Was that your come.
Speaker 11: Specific set back?
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 11: Okay. So for dynamics three, I'm assuming that well, for the primary street, which will be Lowry Boulevard, there is no set back. Right. Actually, for the site interior on either side. There is no set back. Unless they're adjacent to a protected district, which would be ten feet. Right.
Speaker 6: It's okay. And the letter of opposition requested. How much of a setback?
Speaker 11: 15.
Speaker 6: 15 from. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, did you say your coming or. You know, yes, the answer was sort of there. But I you wanted my question was simply was what? I assume Monaco has a parkway set back. What is that actual number?
Speaker 11: I believe it's 20 feet.
Speaker 2: 20 feet. So and then they're obligated to go the full 100.
Speaker 11: Well, they've obligated themselves to. Okay, great. 100.
Speaker 2: No, thank you. Okay. All right. Any other questions for members of council? The public hearing for Council Bill 597 is now closed. Comments by members of Council.
Speaker 7: Councilwoman Sussman Thank you very much, Mr. President. It's a it's quite an evening when Marcus said that this would be the last zoning. One would hope, but never can tell. There might be some more zoning, but it is though it is the last zoning of the new areas. Certainly there might be some rezonings and it gives me a little bit of reflection because I started working on Lowry in 1992 as a one of those pesky neighborhood advocates worried about what it meant because the Air Force base was closing. And as I have spent many, many years with the Lori Authority working on this and am so proud of what the city has accomplished, what Laurie Authority has accomplished, what the neighborhood's neighbors have accomplished, because Lori is, if not the most successful, one of the most successful infill developments of a closing military base in the United States , and is an example of how you redo a military base only when you have lots of participation, but regional participation and not only neighborhood participation, which has happened a great deal here. So it's a it's a sweet moment to think that it's the last zoning and it is the last zoning of the new areas and very happy with what the Planning Office has done. And the olive trees has been there on this since 1992 as well, though we're both only about 35, so that the math doesn't work all that much, but all the work that everybody has done on this and and it's it's an interesting we need to go out and celebrate. Thank you. And I urge my fellow council persons to approve.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, because as soon as I have you in here. Is this from Prior? Yeah, I do think that's okay. Great. Any other comments from members of Council? Madam Secretary, actually, I'd just like to say congratulations. I think in the five years that I've been a part of this, we have had several of these rezonings go through and we've heard a lot of the story. And so thanks for your diligent work. Congratulations. I'll be voting in support of this Council. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: I. Black. Hi, Mark. All right. Espinosa, I.
Speaker 2: Flynn, I.
Speaker 4: Gillmor, I. Herndon. I can. I can eat. Lopez.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please close voting. Announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for approximately 99 Monaco Street Parkway.
Rezones property located at approximately 99 Monaco Parkway from O-1 to G-MX-3, in Council District 5. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-9-16. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-16-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09192016_16-0757
|
Speaker 3: 757 and 758 four 757. I have Espinosa, Flynn, Ortega and Nu make sure that's right. And four 758 I have Espinosa, Flynn and Ortega, so. Right. All right, great. And we will pull up 757 and find out what you all would like to do with this. Councilman Espinosa? I won't comment. What would you like to do with this on 757?
Speaker 8: Just comment.
Speaker 3: Okay. Can I just go down the list and ask Councilman Flynn, what would you like to do with it.
Speaker 0: Mr. President? Just a comment.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Councilman Ortega, what would you like to have for a vote, please? Right. Councilman Espinosa, will you put put council bill 75 seven on the floor for adoption to be published? Sorry.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 757. Be order published.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and second it. You okay, Madam Secretary? Okay. Great comments by members of Council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: I actually didn't have a comment, but I did want to call it out for others to comment.
Speaker 3: That is very nice of you. Councilman Flynn, go ahead.
Speaker 0: Well, fortunately, I do have a comment. Thank you, Mr. President. I struggled with this one a lot because I was one of those members who voted against the fee increase that that goes to in part in great part to to pay for this this bond issuance. And one of my misgivings was the state of the engineering and the lack of of of solid cost estimates. But I was able, in just in the last day or so to meet with staff and satisfy myself that that the costs are based on good, hard unit cost estimating and a good scoping. I believe that because I lost that vote, because we increased the fee over mine and I think to other members votes. I think that my duty now is to make sure that the city's project is done properly and to oversee it properly, but not to obstruct it. So I plan to vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. Councilman. Councilman. Let me do Councilman Ortega and then Councilman Neal.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not going to be long winded because I've been very vocal on this particular project. This is the Plat to Park Hill Drainage Project that was tied to the I-70 project using part of the funding from I-70. I didn't support it then and I plan to vote no tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: And thank you so much, Councilman.
Speaker 10: New York. Mr. Ross, I had a question. Great. George Delaney. Yeah. Where is he now?
Speaker 3: Yeah, he just came in. Probably the. Yeah, George, come on up. And Leslie, you probably should follow and just get the whole team up here. You can you can start your questions as they're walking up. Continue.
Speaker 10: The consultant report was sent to us over the weekend, along with the resolution for tonight. And George, I think you and I talked this afternoon about the issue in the consulting room for saying that the bond issue really is going to fund the the storm drainage and that the senator sewer expense would really be funded by fees . And but then in the resolution, it says that the bar is going to fund both the storm drainage and the sanitary sewer. And just a little confusing to me from what the consulting report said and the money that's needed for storm drainage versus what's needed for senator sewer lines. Maybe your chance to explain to.
Speaker 3: Sure. Please, George.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm George Delaney, chief operating officer.
Speaker 11: For Denver Public Works. The consultant study, as you referred to, does clearly indicate and as we had told you at the time we did, our rate increases that sanitary are planned for the Sanitary Storm Capital Improvement Program Plan was to fully fund it with cash. Our the only borrowing was going to be for the storm projects specifically for the plant the Park Hill project. And what what I've been told is the reason that the proclamation says sanitary mentioned sanitary. And it is because for full disclosure, as we're doing the plan to Park Hill project, there may be some sanitary work that needs to be done, a line that might need to be moved, a line that might need to be repaired or replaced as part of that project. So there may be some bond money actually used for sanitary as in the context of that project.
Speaker 0: Not as a standalone. We're not borrowing money for sanitary sewer IP as it's as it's being proposed.
Speaker 11: But only as a an incidental portion of a plot to Part Park Hill project. So it's more of a full disclosure that potentially that could happen. It's not our plan to use any of the debt money, however, for the basic C sanitary capital program.
Speaker 10: So you really don't feel you feel there'll be sufficient money with the bond issue and the fees for sanitary sewer and there won't be a need to ask the taxpayers for additional rate increase versus fees.
Speaker 0: Right. Our our entire capital program.
Speaker 11: For sanitary will be on a cash funded basis with the fees that were approved effective July 1st. This would only be an incidental spending of some debt money if there was a need for it in the context of that project.
Speaker 10: Thank you, George. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Burns.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you, Councilman. No, thank you, George. Filling. You're going to have to stay up here, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: Yeah, no, I just wanted to clarify why I my bizarre comment, we are in a software change and so normally I'm able to sort of real time see that we have respondents and since we had to do this well in advance of the meeting, I wanted to make sure that this bill was called out because I felt that there were might be others. So sorry about that, I think.
Speaker 3: Thank you for the explanation, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll just echo Councilwoman Ortega. I voted against the fee increase because of my perception of the connection of the Platt Park Hill Project with the I-70 project and my dissatisfaction with what I believe is the shortfall of the Colorado Department of Transportation's efforts to mitigate the impact of their proposed development on nearby homeowners . So I will vote against this tonight and will continue to do so. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right, Councilman. Thank you. Looks like we don't have anyone else in the queue to speak. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Raquel Ortega.
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 5: SUSSMAN My black eye. CROOKS I'm sorry, Clark. Espinosa No. Flynn Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon, I. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. I knew, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I was voting in the results. It's yours.
Speaker 5: Nine eyes. Three knees. We're missing a missing one.
Speaker 3: Councilman Ortega, did you vote?
Speaker 6: I did.
Speaker 3: Okay, we are missing one person. I believe we have 13 council members on my county council.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Black. Okay.
Speaker 5: How was the vote? So an irony. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Your councilwoman was I? So that's tonight's three nays. Yeah. Council about 757 passes. Okay. Please pull up. 758. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like to do with this?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing the issuance of City and County of Denver, Colorado, for and on behalf of the Wastewater Management Division of its Department of Public Works, Wastewater Enterprise Revenue Bonds, Series 2016, for the purpose of financing the cost of acquiring, improving and equipping the storm drainage and sanitary sewerage facilities of the City; providing for the pledge of certain wastewater revenues for the payment thereof; and making other provisions relating thereto.
Authorizes the issuance of City and County of Denver, for and on behalf of the Wastewater Management Division of its Department of Public Works, Wastewater Enterprise Revenue Bonds Series 2016 in a principal amount not to exceed $116 million to fund storm drainage projects and for costs of bond issuance. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-30-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09192016_16-0758
|
Speaker 3: Your councilwoman was I? So that's tonight's three nays. Yeah. Council about 757 passes. Okay. Please pull up. 758. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like to do with this?
Speaker 8: This one? I'd like to call for voting.
Speaker 3: Okay. Please, Councilman, put this bill on the floor to be published.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 758 be published.
Speaker 3: All right. It's been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: Simply similar to the previous comments that this is the acquisition of land for these this 39th Avenue channel that. And so my comments sort of are familiar, I mean, along the lines of what Councilman Cashman just mentioned. So I will be voting no on this bill as well.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Not great that your vote. No, but thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 0: This was for president. The same remarks as before. I think that having voted no on a fee and having a lot of questions about whether this project should proceed, but after having met with staff, I see it as my duty now to see that the project is done correctly and not to obstruct it. So I'll vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. Count. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: My comments that I shared earlier apply to this one as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Okay. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 5: Espinosa. No. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. High knew. Ortega. No. Sussman. High. Black, high. Class high. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: High. Close. Voting in US results.
Speaker 5: Ten eyes, three days.
Speaker 3: Okay. Got to right that time tonight. Three A's Council Bill 758 passes. We are now. There are no other bills. Call it out. We are now ready for the BOP block votes. All of the bills for introductions are now ordered published. I also want to remind, as folks are leaving, that we don't want anyone standing because it's a fire hazard. There are plenty of seats up in the front and I do believe we have overflow tonight. So I just wanted to let that be known. Councilman Espinosa, are you ready for the black votes?
Speaker 8: We'll see. I don't know about this new system.
Speaker 3: Okay. Councilman, please put the move that you think the resolutions and bills for deduction be adopted. With them both.
Speaker 2: Together. So.
Speaker 8: Kelly. I don't think the screen changed.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Did your screen.
Speaker 8: I mean it.
Speaker 3: And Councilman because 757 758 have already passed. You don't need to mention them.
Speaker 8: Let me grab my actual agenda, not the electronic version. So just resolutions or bills for introduction or both?
Speaker 3: All of them. Okay.
Speaker 8: So thank you, Mr. President. I believe that resolutions be adopted and bills for final consideration be placed on final consideration and do pass and block for the following items. 60 are Council Bill 16 059408250622. 0755. And that's it.
Speaker 9: Point of order.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 9: That's for adoption, correct? That's for final.
Speaker 3: No, he's supposed to read all of them. And so.
Speaker 9: But he placed them on final. But they're for adoption.
Speaker 11: Yes, correct.
Speaker 5: It's it's both the bills on final and.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Madam Secretary, can you go to his screen and it's because the screen does if he scrolls down, he could. Oh, there we go now.
Speaker 8: Didn't I just rattle those up? Okay. Let's try that again. But I still have that. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that, resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration, placed on final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 594, eight, 25 and 755.
Speaker 3: Yes, I keep, keep, keep going.
Speaker 5: No, that's okay. Just those three.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I thought we're doing resolutions and bills for introductions.
Speaker 5: He did not. Introduction final.
Speaker 3: Okay, we got it all. Go ahead. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Black Gold.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Clark II. Espinosa, I.
Speaker 0: Flynn, I think i. Herndon, I.
Speaker 5: Cashin Can each. Lopez All right. You. Ortega I. SUSMAN Mr. President, I would. 30 Nice.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes The bills on resolution and bills for introduction have passed. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: Bills on final have passed and resolutions were adopted.
Speaker 3: Okay, we've got a new system. Everyone will get it. We'll get it. Okay, great. Madam Secretary, are there any other bills that are are hanging fire? Okay, good. Tonight there will be a combined one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 625 626 regarding affordable housing programs and a one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 760
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties as needed for the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems Project.
Approves the designation of certain property as being required for public use and authorizing the use, acquisition and disposition by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of certain properties needed for the Platte to Park Hill Storm Water Systems Project. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-30-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09192016_16-0626
|
Speaker 3: Nine eyes, four nays. Counsel 25 as amended passes now councilmembers we are putting Councilman Espinosa, please put Council Bill 626, as amended, to be placed upon finer consideration and do pass. Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill 6 to 6, be as amended, be placed on final consideration and do passed.
Speaker 3: It has been moved in second to it. Members of council. I'm going to let Councilman Herndon go in, but please don't feel the need to you know, I think you spoke on both wheels. But Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 0: This president to weigh this conversation even further would seem disrespectful to those waiting for the next courtesy one hour public hearing. So I forego.
Speaker 3: Councilman Herndon, thank you. Um, it's been first and second. Any other comments? Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Herndon, I.
Speaker 5: Cashman they can each name. Lopez. They knew Ortega. Sussman Merry Black.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Clark.
Speaker 3: Clark stepped out.
Speaker 5: I stepped out. ESPINOSA Hi, Flynn. Gilmore. No, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: No. Please close vote in the results.
Speaker 5: Sorry. One moment. Four Eyes, eight nails.
Speaker 3: Four eyes, eight knees. Council Bill 626, as amended, has failed. Councilman Espinosa, please put Council Bill 760 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning housing, establishing permanent funds to support city affordable housing programs, adopting an affordable housing linkage fee applicable to new construction to be effective October 1, 2017, and dedicating a portion of the city’s existing property tax revenue capacity to the funding of affordable housing programs beginning with 2017 property taxes to be collected in 2018.
Approves creating a permanent fund for affordable housing programs, adopting an affordable housing linkage fee, and dedicating a portion of the city’s existing property tax revenue capacity to funding affordable housing programs. This bill was approved for filing by Councilmember Herndon. Amended 9-12-16 to change the composition of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. The change would remove one of the mayor’s appointments to the advisory committee from an “at large” appointment to a requirement that the appointment be a non-profit affordable housing developer; thus, resulting in two slots on the committee
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09192016_16-0760
|
Speaker 3: Four eyes, eight knees. Council Bill 626, as amended, has failed. Councilman Espinosa, please put Council Bill 760 on the floor.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 76 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: It's. I see. I need a second. Great. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. It has moved and moved in second at the public here of Council Bill 760 is open. May we have the staff report process?
Speaker 13: Good evening, council members. Thanks for hanging in there. Thanks, everyone, for hanging in there. And congratulations on just 1/2.
Speaker 3: Hey, as you're exiting, could you please could you please lower your voice just so we can get going on this council? Bill. Thank you.
Speaker 13: So again, congratulations. And I am a barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development here to bring the 38th and Blake Station area height amendments to you for final consideration. These are amendments to five plans that overlap in the 38th and Blake Station area. It's a bit unusual to specifically amend plans in this way. There there is a reason we know, of course, and just previously discussed the level of change going on throughout the city of Denver. But this area, of course, is just right at the vanguard of that change. It's changing so rapidly and there's so much development opportunity. And and there also is a lot of public investment that has already gone into this area and that will go into this area. And that presents an opportunity more technically. These five overlapping plans have obscured the vision, I would say, for heights in this, the most critical area right around the station. And and we seek to improve and clarify that. And then throughout the process of looking at the height amendments, some things came up that we'll also discuss in terms of the need for new tools to promote higher design quality in the area. And you're you haven't escaped yet. Affordable housing is also part of this discussion. So I mentioned the public improvements here. You're all aware of the Brighton Boulevard streetscape improvements that are are just starting really significant improvements there. The Planned River, North Park, the new commuter rail station at 38th. And Blake, together, they represent essentially hundreds of millions of dollars worth of public improvements in the area where this plant amendment will occur. And I think that that relates to a concept that I want to discuss a little bit regarding value capture. And that is the idea that with all of this investment, that the community that the public is putting into this area, along with the idea that actually it might be more appropriate for there to be even more intense level of private development near the station than was anticipated in the previous plans. But that provides an opportunity to capture some of the value that all of this creates for the community, specifically in the form of higher quality design and the integration of affordable housing into the station area. And that's what we heard really specifically from the community throughout this process, that high density tower development. Yes, it's appropriate. It's it has to provide benefits. This sets a little bit of a of a new precedent, this idea for specifically capturing value in an area like this. But I think it's something and I and I know Brad Buchannan, the director of Community Planning and development, feels this way, too, that this is an important precedent to set and this is an important or a very appropriate place to do it. The 38th and Blake area to look at how all of this investment, all of this development potential can really specifically produce benefits for the community beyond just the development itself. So and then just looking at that, the technical reasons for amending the plan, those five overlapping plans start with the 2003 River North Area Plan. There was a stationary plan in 2009, the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan in 2011, and then the 2014 Globeville plan and most recently the 2015 Elyria and Swansea. A neighborhood plan all make recommendations that overlap at least some part of the area that we're talking about tonight. A lot of them agree, or at least are clear, that the newer plan sets precedent over the older plan. But you have to look at all of these different plans to figure out what's going on. And it tells a story that's that's a little hard to read. Also the most recent plan earlier in Swansea, a neighborhood plan, you know, in some cases it says things like taller building heights may be appropriate in certain locations or that provide community benefits but doesn't say what those locations are or what the benefits are. We're we're fixing that with these plan amendments. So before I I'll run through the the four major recommendations of the plan. The process began early this year. Tim Watkins, with Community Planning and Development, was the project manager throughout most of the process. As many of you know by now, he's moved on to a job in Utah, which is where he's lived for years. So that's the whole it was a long time coming. And so Tim is no longer with the department, but he he really ran a very inclusive public process for this amendment effort that included four major public workshops. Thanks to the folks at XDA for hosting those we had, you know, I think more than a couple hundred people at that, at least one of them. So they were very well attended. This hearing tonight, the final adoption hearing concludes the the adoption process. But we actually are ready to move into implementation right away. Essentially, this is these are very targeted amendments. And we're looking at doing the implementation for the higher building design quality that I'll talk more about and the integration of affordable housing, essentially starting tomorrow, if you give us the green light. So the the recommendation of the plan amendments, the first and kind of most overarching recommendation is to promote taller building heights that some that support transit oriented development or TOD in the station area. And that means what we heard as part of the the community process develop these amendments that taller heights are appropriate particularly near the station platform than were recommended in the previously adopted plan. So just to be clear, the this these amendments do recommend taller heights. But those taller heights would have to come with transitions to surrounding neighborhoods. Cole and Curtis Park have the most exposure, but also Globeville and Elyria. Swansea, and that those taller heights have to come along with the provision of community benefits. So this is an important map in the plan amendments. It's on page seven of the of the plan amendments in your packets. It's a little bit more complex than the typical heat map in a plan because it's showing two different things. The colors, the red, for instance, that's around the station area marked by a T there shows the maximum incentive height, showing that as 16 stories near the station platform. But we're also showing those those white numbers and the white lines are showing what the maximum base heights are. And what that is, is are the heights that are recommended by all those overlapping, existing adopted plans. Typically, when we had a new plan, we'd be setting those aside and moving on. In this case, there's there's a couple of specific reasons to keep those heights on the book and on the books. We're calling them Base Heights. Number one is just to clarify where we're starting from when we say that the development that takes advantage of the heights that are enabled by this plan amendments provides community benefits. So it's the development clearly that's above those heights that are in white. Number two is more technically that we're we're able to clarify the status of map amendments that will be coming through the system. So at least two MAP amendments in this area will come to you before we're able to create the tools that would require the higher design quality and the integrated affordable housing. But what we're saying is that. Map amendments that seek only the heights that were recommended in the previous plans that don't seek to take advantage of these new, taller heights can be appropriate in the interim. But the plan amendments are very direct in saying that map amendments that seek the taller building heights, for example, 16 storeys at the platform would not be appropriate until the tools have actually been developed to compel the community benefits to to require integrated, affordable housing and higher design quality. So that first recommendation to promote Taller Building Heights comes along with the need to promote height transitions. Here we're looking from a point in the whole neighborhood. If you look at this viewpoint right now, you wouldn't see much down there at the end of the street if that area around the platform were built out. According to the currently adopted plans, it might look something like this off in the distance. The plan amendments would allow for taller building heights over there. So you might see something like this, but those taller building heights would come along with the specific community benefits. Recommendation number two really just gets more specific about the need to adopt a regulatory approach to ensure greater design quality throughout the station area. Talks about what greater design quality means a little bit more specifically or what it would seek to achieve in terms of active and walkable public realm, minimizing parking visibility and how and how we intend to more specifically accomplish that or regulate the higher design quality. So just visually looking at what higher design quality might mean, it might mean that there's mass reduction in buildings, that these bigger buildings have to be broken down into smaller parts or can't just be big boxes, that there's greater activation at the pedestrian level, like taller ground floor heights or more specific requirements about ground floor uses. These images on the upper right, you'll see screened parking is one of the things that is in the category of higher design quality specific requirements about the design of any structured parking that's visible from the street. And then I mentioned mass reduction kind of on the left center slide there, meaning that, yes, the plan amendments are saying that taller buildings are appropriate, but that doesn't just mean a 16 storey box say that there's going to be a tool applied to compel something to be happening with that box, whether it's upper story setbacks or or other mechanisms that break down the mass and scale of the building. Recommendation number three is to establish the river corridor as an amenity and a resource. This was something that most people that we talked to in the planning process really felt strongly about, that we needed to be very clear on how the river should be treated. And what that means specifically is that it should be treated as if it were a primary street in terms of what level of transparency would be required, and that all of these tools that will require higher design quality should should be applied to the frontages facing the river as well. The final recommendation regards the integration of affordable housing into the station area. And talks about the increased heights as an incentive for affordable housing built within walking distance of the station. And that this needs to be coordinated with citywide, affordable housing programs. We now have a new citywide affordable housing program. As of moments ago, the intent is that we develop a tool subsequent to the adoption of these plan amendments that works with the new citywide regulations to promote affordable housing that's actually provided specifically within this area. And will will go through a separate process to actually develop those tools. So there's still some unknowns with it. But the basic objectives are it it promotes housing that's there by the station and that it works with this system that you just adopted. So we're not using different metrics. We're requiring the same kind of housing. The final part of the plan, amendments on beginning on the last page, just get a little bit more specific about the next steps. The really important one being this are regulatory and policy strategies saying that, yes, you know, we are directed with adoption of these plan amendments to move forward with tools such as a design overlay district to implement regulations or recommendations for greater design quality and for integration of affordable and mixed income housing near the station area. And I'll just mention, and I think a couple of members of our steering committee may speak about this when I'm finished as well. But the River North R.A. has been working for some time on a request for a design overlay district for River North that really addresses many of the ideas that came out as part of the 30th and Blake Station area process. And what we're looking at doing is taking that design overlay request and using that as the foundation for for what greater design quality means at 30th and Blake and then throughout the rest of of river north as well. The moving forward recommendations also just emphasize that some of the more general recommendations in those previous plans really need to be emphasized specifically in terms of public investment strategies and the need to continue partnerships. Those are more broad recommendations that we continue to work on those things as opposed to the really that specific first recommendation that we move forward right away with the implementation of the regulatory tools. And just to know the way that will accomplish or that we plan to accomplish the plan amendments is to have them as a standalone document, as you saw in your package. But then to on the covers of all of the affected plans to note that that part of the plan has been amendment amended and that you should review the other the newly adopted document. So I'll just go there's a lot more detail about this in your staff report, so I won't spend much time here, but just running through the criteria for adoption of a plan or plan amendments in this case, the first being plan consistency and staff finds that the proposed plan amendments are consistent with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and the relevant plan amendments that are listed on this slide, which include the five plans that will be updated. That an inclusive public process was used to create the plan amendments. As I mentioned previously, there were four big public workshops as part of the process. This was all assisted by a great steering committee, which included representatives of all of the affected RINO's. They met very regularly throughout the process. Tim Watkins actually went to a lot of neighborhood meetings and gave presentations and answered questions throughout the process. And we had the usual electronic outreach, including a website. The final criteria is that the plan or plan amendments take a long term view, and we find that the 30th and Blake stationary amendments establish a vision framework that will guide change in the neighborhood for the next 20 years and that that's an appropriate long term perspective. So our staff recommendation, based on the findings of the plan amendment, is consistent with the Denver comprehensive plan and applicable supplements. Then an inclusive public process was utilized and that the plan includes a long term view is that City Council adopt the plan amendments as a supplement to the Denver Comprehensive Plan. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Well done, Abe filling in for our friend. We're going to call up our eight speakers tonight. That's okay. And I'm sure there will be plenty of questions. Maybe not at this hour, but so stand by, Joe Noble. First up, Cindy. Cindy Candy CdeBaca. Do not see her. Mike Duggan. Do not see him. Jamie Lynn Co. Jamie's back there and then bring up. Oh, no, no. Miguel is not here. John, he. Come on up. You each have 3 minutes. Go ahead, John.
Speaker 10: Good evening, counsel. My name is Joel Noble. I serve on the board of directors of Curtis Park Neighbors. The position for Curtis Park neighbors will be given later by John Hayden. Curtis Park Neighbors President. I served on the steering committee for this effort representing Curtis Park neighbors and wanted to give a few reflections on the process. The first is this is very rare that we amend plans enter neighborhood cooperation a couple of years ago adopted a zoning and planning position statement. That platform that among many other things said it should be possible to amend plans. Plans take a long term perspective and last 20 years. But sometimes things change in the public's view for what should happen. And it's going to take a long time if the public's view has shifted to see that reflected in a new plan. Well, how do we know that the public's view has shifted? It's not a problem that we have many different plans overlapping in this area. The issue is that the plans show an evolution in thinking. So if you were to go back in the slide deck, you would see that the very latest plans, the clearest wants a plan that comes down to 38th Street envisions up to 12 stories on that side of the street, whereas the plan right across 38th Street and again, this is an a mixed use area. I envision much lower heights, only five stories maximum. And you have to look at the at the total result of all these overlapping plans and say this was not thought through because they were done piecemeal and they were done piecemeal with disjoint map segments. And that points to the vision of the community evolving over time, but not being fully captured. And so we were able to take the public's call for the ability to have a plan, amendments with a clear, crying out for map amendments and do that here. The process was wonderful. I think they captured it at a high level. But because plan amendments are rare, we have visitors from other neighborhoods not in the area coming to see what was going on. Is, is someone getting away with something here? Is the public really being represented? And I think when they saw that lots of community members, residential neighbors were represented as well as the business owners and property owners, they were satisfied that this process was proceeding as it should and we stopped seeing them at the meetings. But it was good that we watched their processes are working right. I don't have a lot of time left, so I just wanted to finally touch on the visualizations, the the SketchUp visualizations that you saw. If you look this direction, if things were built to the maximum the current plans had, here's what your view would be. And in this new plan, here's what it would be were crucial to assuring neighborhoods. What are you buying into? What does it look like in the distance? Especially the whole neighborhood, which is the closest residential neighborhood to the platform? You'll see in your packet letters of support from all the residential neighborhoods nearby. And I hope you lend us your support.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Noble. Excuse me. Did you see Kennedy, see tobacco or no. Okay. Okay. We'll go straight to Jamie. Let's go.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. My name is Jamie Lygo. I serve as the executive director for the Rhino Art District, the Rhino Business Improvement District, the Rhino General Improvement District. I'll keep my comments brief tonight, but I just want to say, first of all, thanks to Councilman Brooks, thanks to CPD, who did a tremendous job, thanks to all the neighborhood participants that were involved in this process. It was an incredibly strong show of kind of community input and support for what we went through. You all know by now that Rhino is a place that likes to do things completely differently. They like to challenge convention, and I love that. It's a neighborhood that set the standard for trying to challenge the conversation and push. We are at the epicenter of urban growth in the neighborhood and we are a developing neighborhood. So we have the opportunity to do that. So I just want to say a couple of things about this that I saw from the process that the neighborhood really supports, just so you know. First of all, obviously, the affordable housing component is really important, but also the opportunity to use density, the density conversation as a way to push a conversation about what our neighborhoods should look like for people, for bicyclists from the public realm perspective, and how we can encourage transit oriented development in a way that also supports building neighborhoods that will stand the test of time as they develop out. And I believe this process has really addressed that in a really beautiful way. And the outcome we've gotten to is supported and celebrated by the neighborhood. And you can't ask for much more than that. So thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay. Let's see who's here. John Hayden? Yes.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Members of Council. I am here as the president of Curtis Park Neighbors and I wanted to let you know that our board voted in favor of this amendment. In addition, we had a presentation at our general meeting done by CPD that was remarkable in that at the end of the meeting, almost all 50 people in the in the neighbor that came to the meeting were like, Yeah, let's do it. So I was pretty excited that we have something that, that our community is fully behind here and we are coming to you saying, yes, please bring density here, bring affordable housing to our community. We want to see that happen. And so we support this.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Thank you. Can you say that again? I'm just joking. Let me get Andy Feinstein and Justin Grove.
Speaker 14: Good evening, counsel, and thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak this evening. I just want to augment a lot of the comments. Everybody else said, you know, we just we just witnessed a very robust debate and discussion on affordable housing. And as Jamie took one step back, sorry, I am the cochairman of the right now our district. I'm a resident business owner and property owner in the district. And I've been there for over seven years. So very invested in neighborhood. We just witnessed a terrific conversation on affordable housing. And as Jamie mentioned, we in Reno really pride ourselves on doing things different. And we believe that this opportunity to, you know, move on from the intent of all these plans going back to 2003, which was to have as much density as possible around the station. Unfortunately, when these plans were created in 2003, 2009, 2011, as Abe showed you, even then, the intent was to maximize density on the station. When they were created, no one foresaw 3000 people a month moving to Denver, the 4500 people a month moving to the metro area. So we believe and I know that to combat these challenges that we have, like affordability, like ground floor activation, we got to build up and we want to do this. You know, we want to do this at our station. And we've worked very collaboratively, very robustly with the public conversation to to get to this point. And thanks to Councilman Brooks, his leadership speed has been unbelievable. And our steering committee, I think we're there. So we welcome your support. We're excited about this opportunity. And hopefully Reinoehl can serve as a template for the whole city of how to incentivize affordability for other people to move down that path as well. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Feinstein. Justin Kroft Last but not least.
Speaker 13: Thank you, President Brooks. I want to also echoed the sentiment that this was a pretty amazing process with multiple neighborhoods involved and I think great leadership from city staff, from Councilman Brooks and from the steering committee. My name is Justin Croft. I'm a resident of coal. I work in Reno and I was on the steering committee. I am the chairman of the Reno bid. I think what's so interesting about this process is this very easily could have been more of a technical exercise to align planning documents. It also could have accidentally been a way to just entitle a bunch of ground without anything tied to it. Instead, the community really prioritized this idea that we want to get the best parts of density and not the worst parts of density. And that takes a little bit of thinking around the policy that would be attached to adding extra density around the station. Some of the ideas that we talked about with getting the best parts of density were making sure that the district is walkable, that the population that is moving in is really supporting local goods and services. The idea is that they're buying art. They're buying beer from our breweries. They're supporting retail. They're supporting office. They're supporting services in the district, increase civic engagement, diversity of incomes and cultural exchange really happening on the street. These are markers of a vital urban neighborhood. Some things that can happen if you don't plan correctly, are more of a drive in, drive out situation. Vertical suburbanization, I like to call it. So the idea that you have these buildings around the transit center that people really are treating similarly to if they lived in a multifamily building or even a single family building out in the suburbs, I'm not getting some of those benefits there by clogging streets. People are driving to every single kind of goods service job that they need. What is the benefit of really having that kind of density around a transit station in the first place? And if we're ending up with a more homogeneous population and not a more diverse population, it seems like we've failed in that regard to the ideas that since we always talk about building more density around transit to take advantage of it, if instead we're adding more cars to the street, we've probably failed in that. We talk about really wanting to increase affordability around transit citywide, and if in fact we're creating a more homogeneous situation, we've probably failed at that. So the idea behind this plan is really tying it to these two factors design with the idea being that you activate the street, you create commercial spaces on the ground floor that thereby reduce the need for everyone to have to drive to every good and service job that they need to attend. And then also requiring affordability, but making it a density bonus in effect, so that as a developer it's working better for you, or at least as well economically, while providing a great situation for some of the lower income folks that are at such a critical piece to a diverse neighborhood. So in closing, I just want to say thank you for the time, and I ask that you please support this.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Kraft. All right. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. It comes from an article.
Speaker 9: So I am thinking, Mr. President, I'm. Trying to understand the direct interface with the other stationary of plans. So such as, you know, 41st and Fox. I mean, they're they're on the maps in these documents. And it's not clear if this particular bill tonight is having the effect of ultimately increasing the density in those areas without those having to come back here. Yeah. Can somebody just.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman? I can do that. And even if I miss a beat, let me know. So these are just the neighborhood plans. This is the 30th in Blake's stationary plan. This is northeast downtown area plans, this Globeville or Swansea neighborhood plans. And we're amending those. So this has nothing to do with 41st and Fox and.
Speaker 9: Colorado and 40. So we're amending the neighborhood plans that address the issue of density as it. Affects the proximity to transit because that's primarily where we're going to be seeing the increase in density, right?
Speaker 3: Yeah. But I just I just wanted to be clear that we weren't amending the other station area plans, as you stated in your first question. And and I don't know if you heard Abe at the beginning, a lot of these oh, it was Jill Noble. A lot of these plans were conflicting with one another because they were started a very different times in the earlier global or Swansea. A plan in particular had, as Joel was saying, 12 on on one side of the street in a different. So what we were trying to do is say how can we bring some congruency to all of these plans together and in the process raise the question, are we at the right heights around this station area? Have we taking full advantage of this infrastructure?
Speaker 9: So let me just clarify that with an additional question. So it's because those neighborhood plans all in some way touch on the 38th and Blake that we're having to amend and update those neighborhood plans.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Quick question, Abe. It's just about the design guidelines. Is is that something that is required? Only to get the extra height or is it required for all the zoning in that?
Speaker 13: That's a that's a very good question. One thing that we heard when talking about the design quality was that it really was something that the community's looking for in the area, regardless of what happens with the height increases. And so there's a little bit of a distinction to be made with the integrated affordable housing where we're saying that's really about the the new increment of height that would be enabled and ensuring that when you're taking advantage of that, you're providing onsite affordable housing. The design quality is intended to apply to all projects in the area. However, it's quite likely that some of the specific design requirements would only apply to two bigger projects. For example, the tallest buildings might have the most meaningful mass reduction requirements and that kind of thing.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I think that's great. But the other question is, are they just guidelines as far as shapes and how dense they are and how whatever to step back or is it? Is there like a committee that reviews the architecture?
Speaker 13: No committee except that Reno kind of wants to have its own ad hoc committee. But really what we're talking about here to implement this plan will be effectively zoning requirements implemented through a design overlay, which is a tool enabled by the zoning code to apply specific standards to to a certain area. So there'll be there'll be quantitative rules.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Mass reduction and things like that. Just to carry on. Don't. Councilman.
Speaker 10: You know, I was looking at the affordable housing about the regulatory approach. What are you are you talking about something different than the affordable housing now, or are you talking about something like inclusionary housing be apply there or or something like inclusionary housing applying to apartments for the first time? What are what are we talking about?
Speaker 3: EB I'm going to actually take this one.
Speaker 13: Because I think you're, you're the best person.
Speaker 3: This is one of the more complex ones. But now that we are passed this bill, we feel it gives us a little leeway to start to put this regulatory framework together. We did not want our regulatory framework for affordable housing to conflict with this bill. And so you will see both rental units and for sale units covered under this. And the way the way you do it is you incentivize if someone wants to go up to that, well, that's 616 stories. They will be able to do that for a percentage of affordable units.
Speaker 10: So be done with incentives and not penalties like the idea.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well if. Yes.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: I first have to apologize. She's not here. But Susan Sue Powers, because I didn't raise my hand when I was asked if I had any affordable housing groundbreaking. I couldn't remember. But I did get eight units, despite the total loss of affordability that we've had in northwest Denver. But to this I mean, this is this is a great tool. I really have a this question might be two. Like I would like to hear from maybe three of you that were participants. You know, you guys were both the beneficiaries of having plans that overlapped and needing this sort of discussion to sort of rewrite and revisit these these plans. But is there anything in areas? So I'll just be frank. You know, we got the station area up at 41st and Fox Lake Councilwoman Ortega mentioned where we do have a stationary plan, but we don't you know, our plans are go back 30 years. And with with some vision about when we get around to it in the future. But is there anything in your process that you think that, you know, could could those be could these ideas and these steps be captured without having the plans in place, you know, because the outcome is valuable, invalid. And we do have some direction in our stationary plan. And it's important where where you're going with with this forum design guidelines and standards and the incentives for affordability that we capture that in in that area as well. If you've been paying attention and hopefully you haven't, we've had other discussions about Globeville and Forty-firsts and Fox and sort of the LAC, I mean, the constant rezoning, but the lack of tools to actually implement the vision of the Globeville plan. So having been through it all, you know, can we go from 0 to 2 this without having those incremental plans in place? And A, you can do it. But I'd also like the guys that did the the lifting from the community. Do you think the community is prepared to do that.
Speaker 2: As well as they're.
Speaker 0: Going.
Speaker 13: To turn it over to any of.
Speaker 3: You? I think John Noble and Josh, you guys want to just answer?
Speaker 10: I'll give it a try here. So the what happened here and why this happened here first is in a city that values affordable housing and is concerned about a lack of affordability, accelerating a lack of affordability in the Reno arts district, where the arts is in their name, they're seeing that artists not be able to afford to live there anymore. That caused a coming together to say, we understand there's a citywide thing, the inclusionary housing ordinance that's been revised. We understand that there's a new and better approach being taken, but none of that is going to require that the affordability be right here and driven by the Reno Arts District, need to keep affordability, especially if it can be preferred towards artists. Maybe that's not in the regulations, but but encouraged that that brought the conversation here. First, it's my belief that if we figure out how to do incentives, zoning, right, where if you do this, if you afford this affordability, you get significantly higher development potential, then this is something we can replicate , adapt and learn from at other station areas because it's been commented on by council here tonight. It's it's a shame that although we're getting more density around station areas, it's generally market rate and being near a station is hot and so that gets bid up and there's not a lot of affordability unless you're lucky enough to have a nonprofit, do some land banking in that area. And then you get sort of one thing that's affordable, but you don't generally incentivize affordability. So I think this is a laboratory and we're going to try we've we've tried incentive zoning in Denver before, not too far from here, Arapahoe Square. There were far incentives that essentially nobody ever took advantage of. So we had a lots of discussions to say, how can we do this better? And part of it is not asking too much that people won't want to do it, but also offering a significant enough bonus. If you look at the difference between the numbers and the colors on the map on page seven, you'll see it's a significant bonus that we hope people will choose to take and have. The affordability not only happen, but happen here.
Speaker 8: Yeah, actually, you're the right person. And this is going to go to both of you guys. And this is not intended to sting, but I would like to have you guys on record. So there's both numbers. I mean, there's numbers and colors. There's checkerboard mean dashed lines, defining where those numbers are. How fluid are those lines? Because remember, we've had other rezonings where there's clear delineation on a map where people have negotiated and discussed where those where these heights are supposed to be. Now we're talking about where these bonuses are supposed to be. But if you have a developer that wants to cross that line, is, is that part of the plan?
Speaker 10: I'll try as a community member and then hand it to the office. These these were refined and refined and refined with multiple community meetings, and they moved by half a block. And if you look at some of the shading in the Cole area, on the right side of the diagram, you'll see them stepping down in these very deliberate stair steps. So as a community member, I would be disturbed if if these didn't describe an envelope within which buildings were built.
Speaker 8: Great. I have that on record. Is that the intention of CPD as well?
Speaker 13: Yes, the intention is that this map guides future map amendments. The area in particular that Joel just described is one where, you know, there might be a little bit of interpretation necessary to decide exactly where the boundary is. But the intent is pretty clear that the development is stepping down towards the neighborhood and will be furthering that conversation. When we look at the tools that are in the design overlay as well to see exactly how that's going to be accomplished.
Speaker 3: Can I bring Justin up as well? Justin, we actually Councilman Espinosa, you're going to feel really proud right now. We actually had the conversation because you brought it up. Obviously, it was in my district when you brought it up. But we it was I want you to give your interpretation of a community's perspective in dealing with that developer who took that line further than than it had in the actual plan document.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 13: So you're talking about there's a developer I mean, you're talking about the same example between Larimer and Walnut Street. You know, you got five stories that stops Mid-Block, but the language is a little bit ambiguous. So on the one hand, if you've got a neighborhood that's not particularly. Organized. I think that can be a real negative because it'd be pretty easy to push that line. Fortunately, I think we have been having conversations for three or four years now about what livability looks like in our district and our tools to be able to influence that have been somewhat limited when it comes to development specifically and even more specifically, more institutional type development that isn't modeled after more of a mixed use sort of format. So if you've got a community that really I think has its priorities identified and can use the fact that changing that zoning requires the developer to get the community's support or they're not going to get the community support vocally . It's actually a way to influence the design. So because we didn't have a design overlay and because of that full block development, I mean, it's a full block, it will have a massive impact on the community for its life for 50 plus years. So that development had no active ground floor uses its, you know, its active uses or the leasing center in the gym in the typical situation. So we were able to sit down with them and have what was initially a pretty difficult conversation, but actually turned into a fairly amicable one where we said, if you activate these corners , if you move your live work units to Walnut Street to help activate that space, because artists could potentially use those as galleries as well, then we will support this shifting of this line. And I think that the the way that the neighborhood actually lives shifting that line has less of a negative impact than four sides of a dead block development. That's an entire city block. So but I think the prerequisite for that is that the neighborhoods already had the conversation, really worked out what its goals are, and then is able to use that tool to sort of implement those and influence the design. So I would say for the entire process, the really the same thing applies where, you know, the end result of this is there's value that's being given, there's entitlement that's been given. And so how do we capture it and make sure that there's a give back factor to the community or all the work that leads up to that is what is that give back factor and why is it important? And how do you build sort of, I guess, unity around those ideas? So, you know, we started with neighborhood meetings with seven people in 2012 and said, what is regional look like in the future? What is a really urban, livable neighborhood look like? And right now it's a little bit of a blank slate and then tracked through a lot of those priorities over years. When faced with this opportunity and said there's an ask that there be additional height given we had the conversation, what is the tradeoff? What are the downsides of potentially giving away this density? And how do we turn this into a positive for the community?
Speaker 8: Are there plans? Is there is there language already in there or plan to be language that you can't even if you have ground for activation, that you can't have 100% residential development in certain locations?
Speaker 13: Or we are contemplating that for the design overlay.
Speaker 8: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman. And thank you, Jason. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask a question of either Justin or maybe even Joel about. Whether the issue of train safety came up, where we're talking about adding, you know, higher densities of people adjacent to this particular, you know, station area where obviously there there's an interest to see more development happening. But the the issue of train safety is something that we've been talking about, particularly where we have, you know, these corridors that carry freight and specifically flammable liquids and hazardous materials. And so can somebody speak to whether or not that issue came up at all? And, you know, as part of this this big picture planning for this area. So if you do speak to it, it did not.
Speaker 13: But yeah, I don't think it it really came up. Joel, did you have anything you wanted to add or Andy?
Speaker 9: I mean, I understand the entire area is not next to the track.
Speaker 14: And Councilwoman in.
Speaker 9: The area where I mean, we know that that corridor, you know, will have development on both sides of those tracks. And so where we have development that will be happening adjacent to the tracks. I'm just curious to know whether that was even discussed, because it's a real issue.
Speaker 14: So, Councilman, you have actually we've talked about this, I think, for a couple of years now, and it's a it's a absolutely justifiable concern. And we did not discuss it. You know, if you look at the riverfront area behind Union Station, you've got development on all sides of those tracks throughout that entire area. And I don't see why this would be any different. So we just it wasn't something that came up in the course of our steering committee discussion.
Speaker 9: Well, and you need to know that those residents who live down in that area are some of the very first people who started raising this question as a real concern. And it would be different if we didn't have the kind of flammable liquids that travel through this city and oftentimes stage in the center of the city and more frequently actually stage in this very corridor where we're talking about this development, where the potential impact to human life and property could be catastrophic, you know, with the wrong situation occurring. And so just planning appropriately for how we deal with that becomes really vital to ensure that we're doing our job. When we say we're truly addressing health, safety and welfare of the communities that we're going to, you know, encourage to live. And or work in these developments that happen to be right next to, you know, trains to carry these products. So I appreciate you addressing the question. I just raise the concern and we will continue to do that. We have work that was done by a working group that was chaired by our fire chief. We've got a report that was submitted to the mayor. We've got next steps to then meet with the development community before our agencies start to actually utilize the recommendations that came out of that. And so stay tuned. This issue is not isolated to this corridor. We have this challenge all across the city where we will have transit lines adjacent to these freight lines and where we will see continued pressure for large and higher density development, where I think it's inherent or incumbent upon us to really be looking at doing the right thing.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. There's no more questions. A public hearing for Council Bill 760 is now closed. Comments by members of council. I call on myself. Why not? Right. It's 11:00. The last bill was the most important bill that I've been a part of. And since I've been on city council, this bill is probably. The most intriguing cool bill that I've been a part of. And here's why we had the number was actually 250 people at the meeting and there were architects, developers and folks from coal Curtis Park, Whittier, Gloria, Swansea during a time of Platt to Park here. So they actually showed up to the meeting upset and came by and came back in all of the tables that there were intermixed with all of these professionals. And we had one of the most fruitful discussions. And I think that's why you see an empty room and not pitchforks and, you know, everything else, because we really did have a good conversation around, you know, we don't want to be bolder. So let's talk about heights because if you don't have the ability for density in a city. It's a supply and demand factor. And so your homes are going to be mostly expensive. And so we had a great discussion. This is not over. This is just the plan amendment. The last time a plan has been amended in the city of Denver, 90 to 91, I believe it is. So this is really cool. And we hope that we can continue doing this, that small area plans do get a chance to get amended, be amended for more certainty for for neighbors and business folks alike. So I will be supporting this. You will see us again at a legislative rezoning once the regulatory framework of affordable housing has been set. Once the overlay district of the design standard. When I got to I got to think, you know, Justin Croft and a lot of folks at Rhino for really working hard on that. But thank you CPD for your involvement. And if you hadn't done this before and I feel like you're super flexible. And Tim in Utah, Salt Lake City somewhere. Thank you, buddy. You've been amazing. Councilman Lockett. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: Oh, yeah. Just thank you to Abe. Thank you to Tim. If you're watching and CPD and all the stakeholders help get this hate amendment through. It was a real pleasure when it came to committee to see this, because this is exactly what we've been thinking we needed to be doing for a long time. And I'm a proponent for wisely incorporating density in mixed income developments near TOD sites. So I believe these height amendments are a step in the right direction along with your guidelines and standards that are in the future. So just well done, well done to CPD staff and the community and everyone involved. So thank you.
Speaker 3: AS Hear that. ESPINOSA Well done. All right, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Lots of talk about density and affordable housing. I just wanted to, before it got away, point out that what this does in terms of focus on the river, I think is unique in Denver and I think can set a precedent for how we treat the river and development that the river is not the back where you put all of your utilities and all of the bad stuff that we treat the river as a street, as a main street, as the front door to your building. And I think that's absolutely critical as we continue to revitalize and restore our river. And I hope that this is kind of we can all look back as we're walking up and down the riverfront in Denver for decades to come and say this is what really started not making that voluntary anymore, making that something that we as a city value and that we require. So I thank you for that. I'm really excited. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: And thank you, Councilman Clark. Great comments, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 6: I think it's really incredibly cool.
Speaker 7: And so kudos to all of you. And someday in District four, maybe we'll have one plan. Maybe someday we can amend it.
Speaker 3: But that Councilwoman Black, that was the perfect way to end tonight is remove to say Madam Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 5: Black Eye Clarke, I Espinosa Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Herndon, i cashman. Kenny Lopez. I Knew Ortega Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I close vote. Announce the results.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Black. You are hanging fire keeping.
Speaker 5: 39. Wow.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the River North Area Plan, the 38th & Blake Station Area Plan, the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, and the Elyria & Swansea Neighborhoods Plan by incorporating the 38th & Blake Station Area Height Amendments to each of the five plans.
Approves a plan amendment to update 5 existing neighborhood plans including River North, 38th & Blake Station Area, Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods, Globeville Neighborhood and Elyria & Swansea Neighborhoods plans. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-30-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0804
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Communications. Madam Secretary, do we have any communications.
Speaker 7: Then, Mr. President?
Speaker 0: Proclamations. We have three proclamations this evening. Councilman Castro, will you please read Proclamation 804?
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I would be honored to as proclamation number 16 dash 0804 in recognition of Paul, a Heineman executive director of Urban Drainage in flood control district upon his retirement. Whereas Paul Heineman holds a Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural engineering from Colorado State University and a master's degree in business management from the University of Colorado at Denver. As a professional engineer licensed in the state of Colorado, he has over 37 years of experience in the field of water resources, both in the private and public sector. And. WHEREAS, Mr. Heineman began his esteemed career with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District on January seven, 1985, as a project engineer for the maintenance program. He has held a variety of positions rising through the ranks to become executive director of the district in 2008 and has decided to retire effective September 16, 2016. And. Whereas, in over his 31 years with the district, he served with dedication and his legacy will forever be remembered through the numerous projects that were completed during his time with the district, which include the Goldsmith Gulch, the Storm Sewer Pipe Material, Technical Memorandum, Lakewood Gulch and the University Mexico Storm Sewer, and where, as Mr. Heineman said, unwavering commitment to the district and the safety of every Colorado resident was witnessed firsthand in September 2013, when many counties in the metro area suffered historic flooding. These same floods also displayed the great work that has been done in Mr. Heineman this time, much of which goes underappreciated until it is needed. And. Whereas, through his leadership, responsiveness to citizens and elected officials, volunteer work within the community and dedication to improving policies, procedures and best practices for flood mitigation. Mr. Heineman has helped strengthen a culture and infrastructure that will continue to protect residents and property for decades to come. Now, therefore, let it be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver honors the work of Paul Heineman and expresses its sincere appreciation for his outstanding career of service to the people of the city and county of Denver, the seven counties served by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and the state of Colorado. Section two. That the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affixed the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to Mr. Paul Heineman and the Urban Drainage and flood control district.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 12: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. And I move that proclamation. 804 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. Let's see here. It's been moved and we get a second.
Speaker 8: I'm trying.
Speaker 0: You can see it. We got Ortega for a second. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I do want to again mention I want to thank Councilman Lopez for actually bringing this forward. And I'm sorry he's unable to attend and wish his family well. And I know he would be expressing his admiration for Mr. Hyman's work. And Councilman Lopez served as chairman of the Urban Drainage Board for a while and is a fan. I know that for sure. So for those who don't know the urban drainage and flood control district, one of the least cool names for an organization I think I've ever heard was formed in 1969 to work on essential drainage and flood control projects along the front range. The area urban drainage looks at is over 1600 square miles. Includes the city and county of Denver, the six counties that surround us. Parts of it I think 33 cities and towns and affects 2.8 million people. So when I first started on council over a year ago and then President Herndon made the appointments to various boards, I got word that I had been appointed to the board of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, an organization that I knew nothing about. And I thought Urban drainage. What is this going to be about? And I was very unimpressed. And then I started talking with friends who have interest in that area. And universally the word came back that this was an organization, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, that was held in the highest esteem for the work that it does and the importance of the projects that it does in saving lives. And then as I got began serving on the board and got to know more intimately about the work the board did, it is a totally nonpolitical organization. It is one of the most efficient deliverers of service that I think I've seen in my time on council. They they look to the jurisdictions that they serve to tell them what needs to be done. And then they design and engineer the projects and go to outside sources to actually do do the construction. The work they do has literally saved lives throughout throughout our area. And as was mentioned in the proclamation, all you need to do is to look back at the flood was 1965. I think that the Platte River flooded. And you look at Boulder, the Boulder area a couple of years ago and this is serious business. And we've talked a lot about our drainage needs in this city recently. And I need to say this and this is a difficult thing to say. So I had we had a vote on a drainage issue recently, and I personally have come to have the utmost respect for Mr. Heineman in serving on the board and watching him carry himself. He is deadly serious about the work that his organization does and feels a commitment to the communities that he serves. And we ended up on opposite sides of an issue. And I had to vote in a way that Mr. Heineman was not pleased with and would have recommended against. And I was so happy that that meeting for that vote ran till about two in the morning, because I noticed about midnight that before we took our vote that that that Mr. Heineman had to leave the building. And so when it came time for me to place my vote, I didn't have to look him in the eyes. So. You know, that's the way this job goes sometimes. And it was no reflection on my opinion of my friend. So with that, I would just offer my congratulations on a wonderful career. And those are going to be very big shoes to fill. And thanks and enjoy your time with your grandkids.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 9: Thank you, President Brooks. You know, Paul, it's been an honor getting to know you. I kind of got to know a little bit about your work even before I was elected, because I was always kind of researching what we could do about the Montebello channels. And so, you know, your steady leadership and your commitment to protecting lives and property always with not enough money to really do all of these projects. And so being creative and thinking outside the box and going for different grant dollars is so important. And, you know, you're not just going to leave a, you know, small hole in this organization. I mean, for a lot of intents and purposes, you are this organization. And so I know that transference of leadership is something that you've been working really hard on, and we're going to be proud of the next leader. But no, that will be missing you and hopefully living vicariously through your adventures and your grandchildren and all of the different things I hope you get to do. So thank you for your service. Paul. Thank you.
Speaker 0: President Brooks Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm so happy to be a part of this proclamation for you. I sort of felt the same way when I was assigned to urban drainage about five years ago and but came to also discover how much I didn't know about urban drainage and how much I would like to know about urban drainage. And one of the most special things that you did for us, Paul, was the lectures before the meeting began. He would give us classes in hydrology 101 before the meeting while we were eating a delicious lunch. By the way, I always would like to recommend that to all of the professors I had before. And so I got to learn all these cool words like outfall and drop structure and occlude and capillary. Not not to be confused with hilarity. And my favorites were Cone of Depression and Cone of Influence, which I often feel like describes the work of a councilwoman. But it has to do with water. And I have always been so grateful to have learned as much as I did about urban drainage. And that doesn't sound very sexy, but it's so important to our community. And the work that you done with urban drainage is something that you are going to. They are big shoes to fill and thank you very much for a wonderful experience serving on your board.
Speaker 0: Great Councilwoman and Councilman Clark. I apologize. I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, unlike some of my colleagues, I was very well aware of who the urban drainage and flood control district was before I got here, because I'd spent 17 years of my life working down on the South Platte River, and this is just a one of a kind organization and under your leadership has really done amazing things. So you will be sorely missed. You know, one of the things that when you when you play and you work down by the South Platte River, there are a lot of organizations who have some touch on that and have some authority and some control. And that is a hardworking river. And it serves a lot of different things. And one of the frustrations for me was always as I was trying to work on making the river fun and engaging and safe place for kids to come and learn was to run into these big organizations with a lot of resources who would say , Well, that's not the primary function of this river. This is that this river's primary function is to convey water, to get water from point A to point B or to do this or to do that. And one of the things that was just amazing to run into urban drainage and flood control was that you guys totally got it. Was that yeah, that wasn't your primary objective. And you're here to keep keep the city safe and to convey that water in a storm event. But you absolutely understood, like I would say, no other organization working down there that is governmental, that that didn't have to be exclusive, that it didn't just have to be that that's the one thing this river is going to do. And so anybody who has been down to the South Platte River and seen the $30 million worth of new improvements that have happened in the last 4 to 5 years under your leadership, none of those projects were possible without. You. And without you guys, they just weren't. And you were. You just had this amazing ability to always come to a project and say, hey, this is what we have to get done. But you know what? We can do it like this. And then look at all the benefits. Look at. Look at what can happen. And look at now. Today, all of the kids who are down there and experiencing the river and all the wildlife opportunities, that is possible because of urban drainage and because of your leadership. And so as a city, we are in your debt and you will be sorely missed. And and I would say that the river has no greater friend than you. So thank you for everything they've done. Thank you for your commitment and your work and enjoy what you're doing next. But I hope you'll continue to be a friend of the river in Denver, even in retirement. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like first to ask that my name be added to the proclamation. And then I want to also thank Paul for his years of service with urban drainage and all the important work that you've done throughout the city of Denver and neighboring jurisdictions. I had the benefit of serving on urban drainage for some time and worked with your predecessor, Scott, and your former colleague Bill DeGroot on a number of projects, some of which are on the South Platte River. But that important work would not happen without the important role of urban drainage. I wish you guys would have been the lead agency on the project that Councilman Cashman talked about just a few minutes ago. It might have been a different project, but, you know, that's water under the bridge, I guess, at this point. But I just wish you well in your retirement. And as someone said earlier, there will be some big shoes to fill and just thank you for your service. I see that some of your colleagues are here and hope that when you get a chance to speak, maybe you can just acknowledge them as well. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Cashman I 20 start sorry. Cashman can each. I knew Ortega I Sussman.
Speaker 5: I Black.
Speaker 7: High Clark Espinosa. Flynn I Gilmore I Herndon High. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I close voting. Announce the results just.
Speaker 7: Sorry. One moment. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Total Vice 12 Eyes Proclamation 804 Passes. Now, Councilwoman Kathryn, do you have anyone that you'd like to bring up?
Speaker 12: I like to think about it as a little room full of people. I'd like to invite Mr. Heineman to say a few words.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. First of all, I'm glad that motion passed. And I don't want any of you to confuse me. I'm Paul, and there's a Paul, and we both have blue striped shirts on. But I work for urban drainage. And you're with Denver. You know, I've been at urban drainage and flood control district for over 30 years. And as all of you said, it is a great organization and I have just been blessed to have been a part of that and to work with the city and county of Denver on, as you've all said, numerous projects to help the citizens of Denver be protected when when a flood does happen to protect people, property and the environment. I've had the pleasure to serve with in the last eight years as executive director with four of you on my board. Councilman Cashman, Councilwoman Gilmore and Councilman Lopez, who are on the board right now, and Councilwoman Sussman, who was and Councilwoman Ortega, I do remember back when I was working in the Design Construction Maintenance Program that you were on our board as well and and did many projects in Denver. And our partnership with Denver through the years is just been amazing. We we always want it wanted to serve and do what city and county of Denver wanted us to do, not what we wanted or thought or directed to do. And that has turned out some fabulous projects on Lakewood Gulch, where Gulch, West, Harvard, South Platte, River, Cherry Creek. And I think in the proclamation of one of the ones Councilman Cashman mentioned was Goldsmith Gulch. And I was the project manager on that. And any of you who have been with city and county Denver for a while know that was a long, tedious process to get that done. But we did. And more than 150 households are now protected and are not in a hundred year flood plain because of that project. And that is probably the one in my career that I am the most proud of because that's what this is all about, is to protect people. And I again am just so grateful to have been a part of that. And I am humbled by the people that I've worked with, both with Denver and and at my organization. So thank you very much for this. This is this is the high this is the highlight of my career. Thank you very much.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in recognition of Paul A. Hindman, Executive Director of Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, upon his retirement.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.