meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_10122015_15-0573
|
Speaker 2: Testimony is recorded in any item presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the public record. Public hearings for 573 is now open. May we have a staff report?
Speaker 3: Good evening. So community planning and development. This is a rezoning or a map amendment. Location of the property is 2698. Federal South Federal Boulevard. The proposal is to rezone the property from suburban multi-unit three storey to suburban mixed use. Three storey. So the property is located in Southwest and in the City Council District seven in the College View South Plant neighborhood. This gives you a little closer view of the location. It is on the northeast corner of Yale Avenue, West Yale Avenue and South Federal Boulevard. It is about 9000 square feet. Currently a single family structure or office structure. Property owner is requesting this rezoning to allow the existing office use. And again, the proposal is to rezone from suburban context multi-unit three storey to suburban context mixed use three storey. So the suburban neighborhood context is consisted of single family, multi-unit, commercial strips, commercial centers, office parks, single unit and multi-unit. Residential uses are usually located away from commercial streets and resident and arterial streets. Multi-unit, on the other hand, and commercial uses are located on arterial arterial streets and collector streets. The street and block pattern can be very different when we usually have a modified grid, sometimes not alleys, sometimes not detached sidewalks, cul de sacs. So our block shapes vary, and we have pictures here that kind of give you a flavor of what the suburban neighborhood context is. So the surrounding the existing zoning, as I said before, is suburban context, multi-unit, three storey height limit. There is a view plane that covers the property from Ruby Hill. So the height limit on the property would be 98 feet. Obviously, a three storey building isn't going to be that high. So the new plane is going to have very little effect. The current land use is an office and the current building form is this one story structure. This just gives you a little bit of context on the zoning surrounding it. The property. Where it says SMU three and s 12. All of this property was zoned R for under former Chapter 59, which was our highest density residential zone district under Chapter 59. And in the 2010 citywide rezoning was re zoned to fit the context a little bit better of the existing structures. So the. 612 directly across federal is a 12 storey building. It's a senior housing facility. And then the surrounding buildings to our property, to the subject property are three storey multi-unit structures and then a little south. We've got a pretty that's the kind of a strip mall and another pudi across from that and more residential three storey that ended up being CC three a little further south of that. And then in the larger context, we've got an elementary school to the east and then more commercial along Federal Boulevard in here. So as I said earlier, the existing use is office. The surrounding uses are multi-unit 112 storey and then several three storey. And the vacant property just east of our site that shows up white on this existing land use map is currently there are currently some three storey townhomes under construction on that property. So that this just gives you a flavor for what's surrounding our our property. So the upper left is the property itself. It was a single family home that was rehabbed into an office building, the 12 story office. I mean, senior housing is on the bottom left. And then the two, three story multi-unit to the north in the upper right, the three story townhomes under construction to the east of the property in the middle. Right. And then lower right is the across from that across from that, another three story multi-unit structure. So a planning board heard this on August 5th and unanimously recommended approval of this on September 2nd. This application was heard at the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee and it was moved on to the full council floor. And then, of course, here we are today and all of the proper notices and sign postings have been made. The Arnaud's affected by this are the College View Neighborhood Association, Denver Neighborhoods Association Inc. In our neighborhood cooperation and we have had no public comment on this application. So you're well aware of the criteria, consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and zone district. Purpose and Intent. So the pertinent plans for this property are a comprehensive plan. 2000 and Blueprint. Denver. There is no local neighborhood plan. So a comprehensive plan tells us to support the creation and growth of neighborhood business to encourage quality infill development that's consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and to continue to promote mixed use development. Blueprint. Denver The land use concept is commercial corridor for Federal Boulevard. These are linear business districts, usually oriented to arterial streets with high frequency transit routes. This is an area of stability where we want to maintain the character of the area and area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. As far as for future street classification, South Federal Boulevard is a commercial arterial. These are. Our streets that serve a citywide function for mobility mostly. And. Our commercial streets obviously balance that mobility with access to business. A federal boulevard in on the Blueprint Denver map is also an enhanced bus transit corridor. These are corridors where we want to study, enhance transit and where we want to incentivize it with the possibility of mixing uses or transit friendly uses. UCL Avenue is an undesignated local street, but across Federal Boulevard on the west side of Federal Boulevard, Yale Avenue is a residential arterial street. So staff believes that. This application is consistent with our blueprint Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 and that it will have no effect on the uniformity of district regulations as this as Annex three will be treated the same as every is mx3 in the city, and that by implementing our plans, we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. The justifying circumstance is. Changed conditions. Per the Denver Code zoning code, the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to a degree that is in the public interest to encourage the redevelopment or to recognize the changed character of the area. Sorry, I'm losing my voice. Let me take a sip of water. So the changed condition here is that the property had already been being rehabilitated or rehabbed into an office right about the time that the city was doing a citywide rezoning and zoning it for multi-unit. Unaware that the property was being changed, the use of the property was being changed. So we're trying just to acknowledge that change in the use of the structure with this rezoning. So we did talk a little bit earlier about neighborhood context, the suburban neighborhood context. These commercial uses on arterial streets in our suburban neighborhood context are fairly common, along with the adjacent multi-unit structures. The other commercial buildings on the block. We believe that this all forms a commercial strip on Federal Boulevard that's consistent with this suburban neighborhood context and the specific intent of the S-Max three zone district and applies to these areas in intersections where local and collector streets at a scale of 1 to 3 intersect with those corridors. And we believe the commercial corridor is very accepting of this kind of mixed use zoning as is. I said as I said before, our enhanced transit corridors, we want where we want to encourage a mixture of uses that support transit. So we do believe that this is this application is consistent with the neighborhood context and the zone district purpose and intent. And we do recommend approval of this application.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Sarah. We have to speak or sign them, and I'll call you both up. First is Garrett Jones. Second one is that Texar? So, Mr. Jones, you can come on it.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name's Garrett Jones. I'm the owner of this proposed site and in short purchased the property early 2009 and commenced rehabbing the property into its current use, which is my office. During that period of 6 to 8 months of remodeling and going through the process with the city of Denver, the letters that were sent out about the overlay rezoning process that was happening back then were being sent to the previous owner and not to myself. And so I was unaware of what was going on with Denver's rezoning structure. And so I applied and was granted permission to commercialize the building and put in the ramps and all the necessary things to to receive a certificate of occupancy and deeded the city part of my frontage to meet their criteria that they needed to meet to make it a commercial building. A few years ago, I went to test the market and actually put the property up for sale and received two offers on it. But neither one could close simply because I wasn't aware it wasn't zoned commercial. So that ensued. The process of applying to have it resumed, and that's where I'm at now. The difficulty in having it as an SME U3 building is it doesn't have a kitchen or even a bathtub or a shower or anything that a residential property would have to be able to market the property as a residential property. The whole units commercial was just a sink toilet and a drinking fountain. So that's, in short, why I'm here.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Okay. That Texas.
Speaker 0: Fat tax of 4535. Julian Street, Denver, Colorado. Mr. President, for the second time, I have to object to the fact that this Council clearly has a different set of rules of speech for speech that it supports as opposed to free speech it's supposed to. Tonight, the room was allowed to be overcrowded despite the council rules. And interestingly, the same people who were cut off when they sought to do a demonstration in opposition to the camping ban were tonight allowed to engage in a loud demonstration and were not expelled from the room as they were previously. It is simply unconstitutional to treat speech that you support.
Speaker 2: Mr. Text and speech. Are your comments really? Thank you. All right, that concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from members of the council. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick question for Teresa. Why is commercial not an acceptable use in the SMU? What is the mix of uses if it's not commercial? Is it just retail and residential that's allowed in that zone district? I brought a copy. Oh, my goodness. Multi-unit. Okay. That's. Yeah, it's. Are you? I think my colleague just answered my question. I agree. I think I was I was misremembering what the acronym stood for. A unit, melting unit.
Speaker 3: And there are not very many commercial uses.
Speaker 6: All right. Got it. Thank you. Thanks, Kendra.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman McKinney, Councilman Clarke, you have a question for the microphone.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. So I just want to clarify in the report, it says that when this was converted to commercial, it was an allowable use in the old zoning. And it was just missed that it had been converted.
Speaker 3: No, when it was converted was in 2000, late 2009. We were in the process of redoing our zoning code and taking a look at all of the zoning citywide. So this was zoned R four, which is another multi-unit zoned district. So when we took a look at this building and it looked like a residential structure and the structures around it were multi-unit, we zoned the whole area multi-unit thinking this was a being used as a residence.
Speaker 0: And I'm sorry, maybe I didn't clarify my question up in the report. It says that at the time it was zoned r four and that the office use was an allowable use under the R for zoning. Is that.
Speaker 3: Correct? Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So at the time it was converted, it was an allowable use and then the zoning was changed, which made it not in law will use after it had already been converted because of what we citywide rezoning. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Carter. Any other questions? Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. And and thank you for the hard work on this, Miss Lucero. You know, for me, this isn't an easy one to support. I think we're fixing something. That was a glitch in the changeover. It was converted. It was a it was an allowable use when it was converted. And some were got an oversight that has affected our the land use that was allowed and permitted at the time. So I will be voting to support this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Any other comments on 573? Scene on Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Clark. I Espinosa. I Flynn. I Gilmore. I. Cashman. High can each. I Lopez. Hi new Ortega. I assessment i black. I Brooks.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Mr. President, hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please, for the vote in our results. 1339 as Council Bill 573 has passed. All right. Next one is 615 as amended. Councilman Brooks, will you please put Council Bill 615 as amended on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I put Council Bill 615 as amendment on the floor. Final consideration to pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing on 615 is now open. May we have that for.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. And good evening, council members. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. This application is at 620 West First Avenue and is includes a portion of 90. Galapagos Street is located in Council District seven and it's in the Baker Statistical neighborhood, midway between Santa Fe and Broadway and midway between sixth and Alameda. It. The rezoning faces First Avenue east of Gallup Peg and it's along the west side of the alley, and it's on the eastern edge of what's known as the Industrial Crescent area of Denver. It is located outside the Baker neighborhood historic Landmark District, which is shown on this slide with the Goldenrod dash line. The historic district is to the east and this is to the west outside of the historic district. The property to be risen is 6340 square feet. It includes a four unit to I'm sorry for you in a two story residential building on a 4600 square foot parcel. And then the remainder of the property is included with the larger 90 Galapagos Street property, which has a one story office building and accessory surface parking. And the property owners are the ones making the request. They are requesting rezoning in order to enable a zone lot amendment to conform their zone lots to their current parcel lines. There's not a specific development proposal here, and if nothing else, this slide will really explain why they're here before you. Tonight has to do with a parcel line adjustment that was done since the time of zoning in 2010.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located at 2698 South Federal Boulevard from S-MU-3 to S-MX-3 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 2698 South Federal Boulevard from S-MU-3 (Suburban, Multi-Unit, 3 stories) to S-MX-3 (Suburban, Mixed-Use, 3 stories) in Council District 7. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-2-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10122015_15-0615
|
Speaker 10: There's not a specific development proposal here, and if nothing else, this slide will really explain why they're here before you. Tonight has to do with a parcel line adjustment that was done since the time of zoning in 2010. So before with the map that's on the left, it shows how the parcels were previously split with 90 Galapagos being A to the West and 620 West first being be to the east. After that time, the then owner adjusted the parcel line through an assessment, through assessment and sold parts of the parcel separately but did not do a zone lot line adjustment with it with the Development Services Department. So what happened was it changed the parcel lines which are shown in red to what you see on the right hand side afterward today. So a is 90 Galapagos and includes the surface parking that goes all the way to the alley b is 620 west first avenue includes the four unit residential and surface parking behind it, but the zone lot lines remain the way they were before. So what? So the result is that on the parcel A that one parcel owned by one owner is actually split into two zone lots at one part, one zone lot, and then a portion of another zone . What if they were to rezone? They could do a zone lot amendment to conform their zone. Lots to their parcel lines would be separate from each other, but because the area marked and B to the east is zoned for 2.5, it has a minimum zone lot area of 6000 square feet. So in the urban rowhouse 2.5 story zone district, there's a minimum lot area and they cannot amend. There's a lot below the minimum allowed in the zone district. If they were to rezone to a different district that didn't have that minimum lot area, they could amend their zone lot and then be separate from each other. And so that's why they're here requesting to rezone the property. A And on all of the rest of this half block are already zoned. IMX three has the industrial mixed use three storey zone district. The requesting to rezone the B portion of the property into that same IMX three zone district that the rest of the half block already serves. And and importantly, the IMX three zone district does not have a minimum zone lot size. So if they if this rezoning were approved, they could then amend their zone lot to conform to their current parcel boundaries, be separate from each other for zoning purposes, and not have to need the other's permission for coming in and getting his own permit to build a fence or whatever they may do in the future on the property. Again, there's no current development proposal. The IMAX three zone district does allow industrial, commercial and residential uses up to three stories in height. There are also protected district standards in the building form standards that relate to this property because it is adjacent to the yards, 2.5 to the east. So here's a map of of that zoning. Already you can see the balance of the half block IMX three to the east and to the north is that urban real house 2.5 zone district. As you move further to the west, closer to the railroad tracks, it grows in industrial character, stepping up to IMX five on the map and then into our more general and heavy industrial districts. As you move further to the west and south to the north and east is a solidly residential rowhouse neighborhood. There also is on the Galapagos Street block, some old code zoning that's similar in nature in terms of allowing commercial mixed uses. If you look at the existing use pattern, again to the north and east, it's pretty solidly residential. As you move south and west, you find some office and commercial and industrial mixed in with multi-unit residential. Terms of building form and scale, this area is generally 1 to 3 stories in scale. You can see the the photo two at the top shows some two story homes located east of the subject property. The subject property is shown in the middle photo. That's the two storey four unit building that's there. The lower photo shows the one storey 90 scale office and to the right are three storey multi-unit residential that have been built just to the south. So in terms of process, this application began about four months ago and we provide a notice of receipt of the application on June the first at a planning board public hearing in August, proceeded to Neighborhoods and Planning Committee on September 2nd and has its final public hearing tonight. For public comments. We received only one on this application that was received from the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association Register Neighborhood Organization, who had a meeting of their full general membership, voted to recommend approval of this application, and no other comments have been received. The Planning Board held a public hearing on August 19th to consider this application and after testimony from the applicant, the unanimously recommended its approval. So I'll, I'll browse through the five review criteria which do apply. The first is consistency with adopted plans. We have comp plan 2000. We have Blueprint Denver. And importantly, there's a small area plan adopted since the time of Blueprint Denver, the 23 Baker Neighborhood Plan. So first, turning to the citywide comp plan 2000, as we've explained in further detail in the staff report, we do find it's consistent with many of the strategies in comp plan 2000, including enabling and promoting mixed use development, encouraging quality infill development in a way that's compatible with surrounding character of the neighborhoods. So we find it consistent with that plan. Blueprint Denver, adopted in 2002, identified a different plan direction than the later Baker Neighborhood Plan in 2000 to identify this entire block as single family duplex, which are areas moderately dense and primarily residential, but with some complementary small scale commercial and in it identified this area as an area of stability where the goal is to identify and maintain the character of the area. You can see the Blueprint Denver map. I created the the transition from stable residential to area of change, industrial and employment and mixed use right along Galapagos Street. Both of the streets at issue here are residential in nature. First Avenue's a collector street Galapagos and designated local. But the 23 Baker Neighborhood Plan provided a refined direction from the direction that we had previously had in Blueprint Denver. So the site here is shown in the yellow dashed line and the heavy blue dash is the historic district again. But you can see in the Baker Neighborhood Plan that the direction for both area of change, stability and for land use has changed. So it following the small area planning process it was the neighborhood in the in the area plan adopted by council identified that both sides of galloping go would be an area of change comprised of residential and office and a blend of uses from the residential area, which is the yellow area to the solidly industrial area, the blue area to the west. So in both respects, the Baker Neighborhood Plan changed the area of change designation as well as the land use designation supporting a mix of residential and office on both sides of Gallup ago, which is reflected in the current zoning. The goals articulated for that area of change directly address this this rezoning request. Again, it's about creating a logical change between the residential to the east and the heavier industrial to the West, providing a range of office and residential uses that allow property owners flexibility over time. It does specifically call for reinvestment in the light industrial and commercial properties in this area, and that we should support rezoning applications that allow for a mix of uses. So all these goals from the Baker Hood Neighborhood Plan in 2003 were pointing to a solution that we have on the books today, like our IMX three industrial mixed use, three storey zone district. So we do think the application is consistent with the Baker Neighborhood Plan. It also would be uniform in its respect to rate district regulations as as the same regulations would apply as they do to other annex three zoned districts. And it furthers the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of the city's adopted plans. Here, the change that just provides a justifying circumstance for the rezoning is the change of an ownership that's resulted in the current situation that the property owners have with the split zone. Zone lot, as well as recent development on Galapagos Street, has actually reinforced the character as identified in the Baker Neighborhood Plan, with three storey residential and mixed use development that that all support that this kind of continuation of the rest of the half block in the IMX three zone district. So we do find that there's a justifying a circumstance for the rezoning. And then turning to consistency with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statements. The IMX districts are designed for a more urban context where you have a rectangular street grid and to provide a transition from mixed use in I.A. and IP areas while accommodating a variety of uses. And then specifically IMX three is for an area for with local or collector streets and where three stories is desired. And really, this this area seems like the perfect fit for that kind of a context, description and zone district purpose in intent statements because it already contains that mix of uses. Three stories is the character of the area and there's already IMX three zoning on the rest of the block. So we do think that the site and the rezoning request are consistent with those statements. And so having reviewed against all five criteria, we find that all have been met and the staff recommends approval.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have one speaker, Enrico Cascio.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Mr. President, and council board members. I mean, there is there is very little I can add, really, given this very comprehensive presentation that I did. I mean, I think what I like to stress is that really for us, the need is is to to to be able to get these two owners to not be dependent on on each other. And that was the main reason why we we started this process. I'm not really fully understanding how much work it was going to entail. But so, I mean, I'll be really happy to address any question you may have otherwise if if there are no questions that I would kindly ask you to, to support this request. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Now time for questions from members of council. Any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Just for you, Councilman Brooks, I would like to speak to Tim. Or not. Tim. Abe. So I'll.
Speaker 2: Keep going. You'll get it.
Speaker 4: Right? Right. See, it's not just you, Kyle. The what is the minimum? And this is sort of not relevant. But you said there is no minimum zone lot for I am x three. What is the minimum lot sizes in order to reason time x three?
Speaker 10: There's no minimum area to Arizona. Wow.
Speaker 4: So a two by two square foot I mean a four foot square foot parcel could be mean. A zone like could be created and imx three.
Speaker 10: That's theoretically possible. That's right. Yeah. You know, in this case, there wouldn't be a minimum even if there were a minimum, because they're zoning to the center near adjacent to the minimums wouldn't apply. Even if there would be if.
Speaker 4: There wasn't, there would be the 6000 square foot or what is there? There's no minimum.
Speaker 10: There is no minimum for the mixed use districts.
Speaker 4: No, I'm asking that because that it's a flexible zone district and it's something that I might want to consider elsewhere. Then the last one. You referenced the change in ownership as sort of the Article 12 trigger for change of conditions. That is not a hardship in the eyes of the Board of Adjustment, but it is a hardship in the eyes of CPD because, I mean, where does due diligence in that process sort of play into play a role at this level?
Speaker 10: So yeah, the change in ownership is one of the justifying circumstances that we identified, one of the changes that we found that apply to this property. A rezoning does not have to meet the hardship criteria of a variance. And so it it's not the same as the hardship that a board of adjustment can.
Speaker 4: I'm just saying that because you didn't state it in your testimony, but it was the word hardship in the connection with this change of ownership as a hardship was in the presentation.
Speaker 10: Sure. Yeah, yeah. The property owners definitely are experiencing this as a hardship as it makes it difficult for them to do work. It's not the same as needing to meet the hardship criteria for a variance in the code though.
Speaker 4: Okay. Yeah. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Kyle. Just a quick question. I saw in the presentation that Baker has started Neighborhood Association voted to support this. No other comments were received, but I didn't see anywhere in here what other neighborhood associations were notified of this. Are there any other nos other than ANC and Denver Neighborhood Association that cover this particular area and were they notified?
Speaker 10: Sure, yeah. All of the registered neighborhood organizations that claim territory within 200 feet of the property were notified 21 days in advance of this hearing, as well as the other hearings and public meetings. So in addition to ANC and the Denver Neighborhood Association, the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association, Santa Fe, Santa Fe Drive Redevelopment Corporation, and the Denver Urban Resident Association, which is a new citywide organization, were all notified.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 2: Thank you, councilman flynn. Catherine that follows you back up.
Speaker 4: Kyle, while you're up here. I do want to apologize to you directly because as soon as I'm sort of reflecting on like I have two Baltimore pictures flashing in my head, I'm like, there's no resemblance that I'm very sorry for for uttering their name. So thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Catherine. Any other questions? CNN public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. This is in seven. So this is this is it. We had council Councilman Clark. It says Brooks on the script. I knew that wasn't right. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think this. Thank you for the presentation. I think this clearly meets the criteria for a rezoning and also cleans up our zoning in this area and provides these homeowners with the opportunity to exercise their right as homeowners to act independent of one another. And so for that, I will definitely be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to. I spared my colleagues the sort of my comments on the last rezoning. But on this one, I just wanted to sort of emphasize that this is a this is a 40 a pretty flexible zone district with some pretty interesting development requirements next to a protected zone district across the alley. And and with the sort of combination of what they're asking for and the small area plan that's in place, this is sort of, to me, an example of when it when all the things that are in place to sort of support a rezoning without a sort of future plan, this is this is this is how it in my humble opinion, it should be done.
Speaker 2: Bank Accounts mechanism. Any other comments? 615 as amended. Scene? None. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 5: Clerk I. Espinosa.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Cashman I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman Black eye. Brooks. I miss Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please, for the vote in the results. 3939 615 as amended has passed no pre adjournment announcement seen no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 6: Denver eight TV's Your City, Your Source.
Speaker 1: Denver eight. On TV and online. To stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
|
Bill
|
Rezones 620 West 1st Avenue and a portion of 90 Galapago Street from U-RH-2.5 to I-MX-3 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 620 West 1st Avenue and a portion of 90 Galapago Street from U-RH-2.5 (Urban, Row House, 2.5 stories) to I-MX-3 (Industrial, Mixed-Use, 3 stories) in Council District 7. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-2-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10052015_15-0688
|
Speaker 6: , you know, reassuring, talking it through. He called back in the morning. That commitment to safety goes above and beyond. A lot of times, I think the call of duty and we're sorry to see him retire and leave the city, but I'm sure that we are all much safer, safer with him being here and having his touch around , making sure that workplace safety is a high priority.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Clark?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just wanted to also chime in and say thank you so much for your service, especially when it comes to our park ranger program. This is just an incredible asset to our city. These park rangers are out in our beloved parks and doing really hard work with people who get angry with them. And I have seen personally so many times them just be calm in the face of yelling people and really help make sure that all of our parks are safe and enjoyable for everyone. I can't imagine our city and our park system without this Ranger program. And so I just wanted to add my. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: I also wanted to just chime in on the thank you's and congratulations. Thank you for the hard work. I actually am very thrilled you are here in the council chambers celebrating and the proclamation. And not because I had a six pack at Barnum Park not too long ago. I was like, God, I swear to God, we drank that all medium and put it in. I'm just kidding. It's keeping you on your toes, man. No, I. It's. The Park Ranger program is so important in our city, and you all help keep the peace in our parks, help keep them pristine, but also help educate people on what the rules are and and what we can and can't do to our parks. And also because our parks are so historic. However old or however new they are, there are places for everybody and there are places for community gather and you all are the faces. And you all served this city with such with such dignity and with such hard work and honor. And I think it's it's fitting and congratulations and thank you so much for your service.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, I'd like to have my name added. And I just wanted to say, do we have Happy Haines here in the audience? Happy served on this city council. And back then we used to have parks police. It was before we had Parks Rangers and, you know, a lot a lot changes in the city. But I think the fact that we do have park rangers is so important, especially, you know, not just in the city, but in our mountain parks as well. And not long ago, a number of us had an opportunity to go do a tour of our mountain parks. And the amount of land that we have in our mountain communities is pretty, pretty massive. And so to be able to cover all that ground and deal with some of the challenges and issues that come up, I think is is important. I know that involves a lot of interface with Jefferson County where most of that land is located. But I just wanted to say, David, thank you for your 19 plus years of service and really appreciate your dedication and commitment to the city and just wish you Godspeed in in your retirement. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Any other comments on 688? CNN Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Gilmore I. Cashman I can each. Lopez I knew Ortega I. Susman, I black I. Brooks, Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Espinosa, I. New. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please, first of all, to announce the results. 1212 8688 has been adopted, Councilwoman Gilmore. Don't suppose there's somebody you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to invite a Denver Parks and Rec leadership, along with Mr. David Stewart.
Speaker 2: So I just wanted to say a quick word. So, David. David has been huge for me. I mean, I've been in this job about four years, and I learned very quickly that when he's not the person you call, when something's going right, you call it when something is going wrong. And I'll tell you what. Not once did I ever call him, and he did not pick up his phone. He was always there for me, and he always gave me the sage advice. He kept he just kept things on the right track. And he made sure that I was doing making sure I was doing the things right and correctly, to make sure that we kept people out of trouble and we made sure that we were following protocol. As as Councilwoman Ortega mentioned, you know, we had an amazing mountain parks tour. And and on that great adventure, we had a little mishap on the way back to Denver on Sixth Avenue. And I'll tell you what, the first person I called was Dave Stewart. And I'll tell you what. Within 15 minutes, he was out there on Sixth Avenue helping us deal with that situation and taking care of business. So it is true. It is totally true. Dave created the park ranger program in 1999. He decided, we need a park ranger program. And it is true that when he started the program for at least the first month, he took his bike and he strapped it to the front of RTD bus and went around to Parks and and basically was our first park ranger. So I want our park rangers to stand up. I just want you to know, if it wasn't for Dave, we would not have a park ranger program. We probably have around 30 park rangers in the city of Denver right now. And to think that he was he did this and he envisioned this is pretty amazing. So I want to actually acknowledged Janet, his friend that's here. And thank you for coming. And all of our park staff has come to definitely recognize David because he's been a huge part of our department. So I do want Bob Tall to come up and say a few words.
Speaker 10: Good evening. I'm real proud to stand up here and to recognize Dave for his years of service. And I feel very honored to be part of the ceremony tonight to help congratulate him on all those years of service. A lot of things have been said already. They're all true, and I really appreciate all of council's support for the program and the kind words for Dave. They're well-deserved. Dave I don't know how to say it, but Dave exemplified and yes, he does answer his phone like Scott, no matter when you call. But Dave exemplified and promoted excellence in serving park visitors and protecting park resources and the finest park system in the nation. Denver His legacy of leadership and mentoring continues to inspire all of us and including myself and is very much appreciated. I feel fortunate to work the last three and a half plus years with Dave. So Dave, on behalf of the Denver Park Ranger program, congratulations on your retirement. And I'd like to present this little badge plaque for Dave. And let me just read it to you, maybe just a little bit of background. First, we always called Dave the godfather of the program because that's that's what he was. And so this badge plaque is presented to Dave Stewart, the godfather of Denver Rangers. Thanks for all the years of dedicated service. Denver Park Ranger Program 2015.
Speaker 3: Once again, I'm.
Speaker 9: Just window dressing. But I did say to what I said to Davis, Is it something that I said.
Speaker 11: Dave?
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. This is truly an honor.
Speaker 1: And I really appreciate.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 1: Opportunity to serve the citizens of Denver and Denver City Council. The mayor's office and.
Speaker 0: I have.
Speaker 2: Started out with the city attorney's office.
Speaker 0: For my first seven years and moved.
Speaker 2: To the finance office and then finished my last six years.
Speaker 0: With the Parks Recreation Department.
Speaker 2: So it's truly an honor and thank you very much.
Speaker 0: And good luck with the new appointment.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, for that. We are moving on to Proclamation 689. Councilman Cashman, would you please read Proclamation 689?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Let's see. Proclamation 689 celebrating October as spell binders aural stirrer storytelling month. Whereas in 1998, Spell Binders was founded in Denver, Colorado, bought by Jermain Deitch, who wanted to build intergenerational communities between children and older adults. And in 1997, Spell Binders became a Colorado nonprofit corporation with the goal of establishing storytelling chapters across the country. And. Whereas, Spell Binders oral storytellers have shared the art and joy of oral storytelling with 65,000 Colorado students each year. And. Whereas, Spell Binders is dedicated to restoring the art of oral storytelling to connect seniors to youth, weaving together the wisdom of diverse cultures throughout time and. Whereas, Spell Binders oral storytellers are volunteers who embrace the power of stories, keeping children spellbound with literature. Today there are 18 chapters in six states and in Canada. And. Whereas, Spell Binders oral storytellers are committed to enhancing literacy, encouraging character development, providing humor, building resources of wisdom, and sharing a love for the written word. And. Whereas, storytellers gathered at Denver Union Station on October 2nd, 2015 at 4:25 p.m. through October 3rd, 2015 at 5:25 p.m. to set the world record of 25 hours of storytelling. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council proclaims the month of October 2015 as
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring David Stewart for his service to the City and County of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10052015_15-0689
|
Speaker 0: Whereas, storytellers gathered at Denver Union Station on October 2nd, 2015 at 4:25 p.m. through October 3rd, 2015 at 5:25 p.m. to set the world record of 25 hours of storytelling. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council proclaims the month of October 2015 as spell binders oral storytelling month and Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that copies be transmitted to Catherine Johnson, Executive Director Spell Binders Ray Moore and Brenda Vasquez.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Carson, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 0: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 689 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This body promotes sometimes that we think deep thoughts about important issues. I love stories and I've always loved stories. Since I was a little boy. I have distinct memories of sitting on the floor in first grade while Mrs. Slattery read stories to us a few days a week. I remember how excited I would be knowing that on a specific day there would be more tales of our Founding Fathers, the Wild West, or some mythical character that came from the recesses of her mind that opened mind to all manner of imaginative creation. I also remember how excited I was when I found out about this place called the library that had so many, many stories on its written pages. And how those stories freed me to the exploration of all manner of brave new worlds that spoke of what was, what is and what might be. The first book I remember reading was The Autumn Autobiography of Abraham Lincoln. The last book I read recently was A Man's Search for Meaning. Both of those were fascinating and rewarding, but none were quite as exciting as as the stories that Mrs. Mrs. Slattery had to offer, because she was the one who first allowed my imagination to take flight. And that is what storytellers do. They pry open our minds and expand our willingness to hear hear tales different than what we might have heard before. For thousands of years, human beings have passed on history through the oral tradition. I spent this past weekend with old friends celebrating the 50th reunion of my graduation from high school, and it was four days of storytelling at its finest. But as time is not always conducive to accurate recollection, as one of us remembered facts a bit different than the other. Another would add a correction. The actual. Truth of the narrative was refined and the history was made right for us all to carry forth to our family and friends. So I dug up a few quotes that I liked about storytelling from author Philip Pullman after Nourishment, Shelter and Companionship. Stories are the things we need most in the world. Brandon Sanderson, from the Way of Kings, said The purpose of a storyteller is not to tell you how to think, but to give you questions to think upon. And Rudyard Kipling If history were taught in the form of stories, it would never be forgotten. And my personal favorite from Dr. Seuss. You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. So while while tonight, I am pleased to honor the spell binders for your 25 year commitment to our community and for bringing the miracle of story to so many, many young minds . I want to take this moment of privilege to thank all the storytellers, friends, family, authors, filmmakers, musicians, and Mrs. Slattery for sharing with me your wonderful gifts. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Any other comments? 689. Seen. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Cashman.
Speaker 4: I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Black eyes. Brooks Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 4: Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please for the vote. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12.
Speaker 1: 12, 12. 689 has been adopted. Councilman Cashman, is there someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 0: Yes, there is. Mr. President, I'd like to invite Ray Moore, and I believe some other representatives of spell binders are with him. Mr.. Mr. President, Council council members, thank you so much for for this proclamation tonight. We really appreciate it. And it, again, just really reinforces and validates what we volunteers are really committed to. That's sharing the oral storytelling tradition, telling kids stories about the star in the cottonwood, about the ghost with one black eye, with a with other kinds of stories, too, like Mrs. Slattery told you way back when. And what I want to say about spell binders is that, as you mention, or as the proclamation states, we have expanded 25 years ago, actually more than 25 years ago, we started in the Denver public schools. One woman had a vision of older. People telling stories to younger people, and it's as simple as that. And we achieved that result and then some. So I really, again, appreciate the recognition and we will obviously over the next month we have a lot of storytelling events planned. You should have in your hands our brochure. Inside, there's a calendar with all the storytelling events that are above and beyond all the school activities we engage in. Normally in the Denver Public Library, for any museum and other places around town that people can come experience stories. Stories that they may like. Like you say, have. Forgotten. And it's good to hear them again, because they remind us or they bring forth memories that help us fill in why these stories are so important. We have a number of people with us. I have a number of other my storytellers and Brenda Vasquez, who is the coordinator of our program for the Denver Public Schools. And just introduce them now. I'll have each one do that in turn.
Speaker 2: I'm Tom Hobbs, Denver resident and known as The Man in a Hat. And the kids go nuts. There's nothing more satisfying in walking away with your legs hurting from kids, hugging your legs.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 6: I'm Harriet Hoke, and I'm a storyteller. And some of you may remember that.
Speaker 4: For 32.
Speaker 6: Years, I was up here and telling you.
Speaker 4: Stories about.
Speaker 6: Planning and developing the city. Well, now.
Speaker 4: I do this for.
Speaker 6: Children and to help engage their imagination.
Speaker 4: In terms of what can.
Speaker 6: Be tomorrow. Hello. Thank you for this opportunity and thank you for honoring our wonderful storytelling volunteers. And just want to remind you that these incredible volunteers do not read books, but they tell stories. And that's there's a big difference there. We are the founding chapter of Spell Binders, and we have hundreds of volunteers donating thousands of hours in our Denver public school classrooms, telling to hundreds of classrooms and thousands of students. And they really do an incredible job of oral storytelling, which results in igniting the imagination of our children, creating an environment of excitement and a an excitement of reading. One of the things we hear often from our teachers is that after our our talented storytellers tell their stories in the classroom, there's a rush to get to the library to check out the same book. So it actually creates a love of reading. So as the manager of the Office of Volunteer Services at Denver Public Schools, I encourage all of you to consider being a storyteller yourself. We have a training. Anybody can be a storyteller if they have the heart and passion for it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And again, thank you for approving this proclamation. Paul, thank you for your work on this. And we are very grateful we were going to have a great month. We did set that world record over the weekend. And even though we were a little tired in the process, it was certainly a worthwhile effort. If you happen to catch the story on Channel nine or Channel Seven, maybe you can understand a little bit of this of this whole process, 25 hours of straight stories. And we've just started. Thank you. That.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman, for bringing that forward. All right. We've got one more proclamation. 733. Councilwoman Kenney, will you please read proclamation 733?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. Proclamation 733. In celebration of Taiwan Friendship Day on October 10th, 2015. Whereas the Republic of China, Taiwan will be observing its 104th anniversary of its National Day on October 10th, 2015. And. Whereas, the Council of the City and County of Member becomes the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office, welcomes the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating October as Spellbinders® Oral Storytelling Month. A proclamation celebrating October as Spellbinders Oral Storytelling Month.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10052015_15-0609
|
Speaker 4: Airport 678 Resolution of voting post contract between City and County Derek Troutman and Shreve Cooperative or Concourse B BCA replacement at Denver National Airport for Governance Charter Review 658 Bill A Resolution for the Mayor's Reappointment to the Career Service Board 665 Resolution Approve the Mayor's reappointment appointment to the Denver Housing Authority Board. 666 A resolution approve any post special counsel agreement in City and County Division Allen and Currie, P.C. to provide legal services or conflict cases, overflow delegation, workers compensation, subrogation actions and other legal matters as needed. 667 A resolution approving the Mayor's reappointment at Denver Commission on Aging. Six From Infrastructure and Culture 664 Resolution Professional Service Agreement Ground Floor Media, Inc. for Professional Services for Adult Development and Implementation. Emerald Ash for Marketing Campaign from Safety and Well-Being 662 Resolution seven Oppose Site Use License Agreement between city and County Division Empowered for one on one's financial coaching. Two Denver residents at the Denver Human Services Castro Building, a Denver Human Service facility in the Montebello Building.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Now time for the bill for introduction. Let you please read the bill for introduction.
Speaker 4: From Business Development 668 Bill for an ordinance authorizing Director of Excise and licenses to issue retail marijuana store licenses to applicants without the requirement of a tax bond infrastructure and culture. 504 Bill for an ordinance proposed design services agreed between City and town different dig studio Inc. for Architecture and Engineering Design Service Package Sanchez Park 653 Bill for an ordinance approving and providing execution for intergovernmental agreement. Twin City Encounter State of Colorado Department of Transportation Concerning Traffic Signal System Improvement Program Denver two ZIP 2015 Signals Project in the funding therefor 669 A bill for an ordinance approving and providing an excuse to impose intergovernmental agreement on city and county. The State of Colorado Department of Transportation Concerning Traffic Improvement Program Denver Tip 2015 Signals Project and the Funding Therefor.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Councilmember, this is your last opportunity to call out any bills or resolutions starting at the top. Under the resolutions, no resolutions called out bills for introduction 668 called out by Councilwoman Each. And Bill's on final. Nobody was called out. So we got one 668 call out by Councilman Kennedy. Did we miss anything? Think we're good? Madam Secretary, first one's already teed up. Councilman Kenyatta, would you like for us to deal with this?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a question, please.
Speaker 1: Go right ahead.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So this bill, 668 is a policy ordinance and I am part called it out because we typically have policy changes heard in committee so that there's a lot of transparency for the public. In this case, we have two weeks of budget hearings that kind of forced us to put some things on consent. And I just wanted to ask someone from the department to please explain what this bill does. Is it actually we previously required marijuana centers to pay a bond to the city upfront in order to do business so that if there were any violations, the city had a place to go to pay for any fines or penalties that may be incurred, unpaid, unpaid fees, etc., where we are going to be removing that bond requirement. And I just wanted to ask the department if they could step forward and explain that just so that all of the public is very aware of this policy change.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution for a resolution approving and providing for the execution of a proposed grant agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Health Foundation concerning the "Denver Healthy Corner Store Initiative” program and the funding therefor.
(BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Approves a $660,932 contract with the Colorado Health Foundation through 6-30-17 as part of the Denver Healthy Cornerstone Initiative to increase corner stores’ capacity to sell healthy, affordable foods to residents in underserved areas (2015223490). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-26-15. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 9-15-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09282015_15-0691
|
Speaker 4: Whereas Denver, Colorado. On Takayama Gifu Prefecture, Japan established a city relationship on June 29th, 1964, a mutual benefit of each city. And. Whereas, Denver, Colorado and Nairobi, Kenya established a sister cities relationship on March 2nd, 1975, and the mutual benefit of each city. And. Whereas, Denver, Colorado and Axum, Ethiopia establish a sister city relationships on January 25th, 1995, for the mutual benefit of each city. Whereas the City of Cities relationships between Denver, Tacoma, now Nairobi and Aksum have expanded the cultural vibrancy of these cities through local and global programing. And. Whereas, Denver, Tokyo and Nairobi and Axum have hosted other adult student educational and tourism exchanges in both direction, expanding the knowledge of each of each other's cultures. Whereas the medical communities of these cities have benefited from advance educational exchanges, hospital support and voluntourism. Whereas, the sister city relationships have directly catalyzed important development for Denver sister cities, including nonstop flights and expansion of trade. And. Also, whereas, the municipal governments of these cities have been enriched and strengthened through exchange and ideas. Idea sharing. Whereas, the sister city relationship of other important cultural connections through Japan, Kenya and Ethiopian diaspora communities in the Denver region. And. Whereas, the friendship that exists between Denver and a sister cities grows and grows stronger each year and is of value and is valued deeply. Now, therefore, be a proclaim by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one. The Denver City Council heartily recognizes and celebrates the 55th anniversary of the sister cities relationship between Denver, Colorado and Tokyo, Japan, and the 40th anniversary of sister city's relationship between Denver, Colorado and Nairobi, Kenya, and the 20th anniversary of Denver Sister City's relationship between Denver, Colorado and Axum, Ethiopia. That the clerk of the city and the county of Denver shall a test and fix a seal of the city and of city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that the copy thereof hereof be transmitted to Denver Sister Cities International.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: I thank you. Mr. President, I move that proclamation 691 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is you know, when I first came on the city council, before we got inaugurated in 2011, a very large individual who we all know by the name of Wellington Webb said, You know, I can't even use his voice. I was going to try and use this word for I can't do it. He said, You know, whatever, whatever you do, I really don't care. But it would be really nice to see the sister city relationships that we have, the 12 sister city relationships invigorated again. When I left office, it kind of fell off and so I began to do research and it was true. We actually had global offices all across the world. I mean, you know, Mayor Mayor Webb really believed in connecting with the rest of the world. And he was probably a little bit ahead of his time because now the world is flat and globalization has happened and countries no longer trade. Cities do. And so this was a project that our office took on, and it happened to be the city of Nairobi. And we went on a trade mission to Nairobi, not knowing what the heck we were doing. And we went out there with, you know, when you do trade, it's not about the city, it's actually about the region. And so we had a CFO from level three, Sunit Patel with us. We had some nonprofits. We also had Navin Dhiman, who was in the hotel business, and we went over there and built a relationship. With Nairobi. And on our first mission, I had a multimillion dollar investment with level three into Nairobi. And it was just an incredible opportunity to understand and and exchange ideas around education, exchange ideas around economic development, exchange ideas around government policies. And I've seen firsthand how much the relationship works and is the launching pad to so many other issues and things. So that's why I'm such a believer in Denver sister cities and we as a city don't invest that much into our Sister Cities program. But the return on investment is quadruple. And so I will always be an advocate doing budget season for Denver sister cities and and making sure that we do have that global reach. And we are talking to our friends and neighbors. I wanted to touch on, you know, Takayama was key in the in our inaugural flight and building those relationships. And I believe the mayor has has been. Has the mayor been out there, been out there to meet the mayor as well and as well as Aksum, Ethiopia, which as we look at our global nonstop airfare and we look at potential cities, most people don't know. But Aksum is a city that we are considering, and we have an incredible population of Ethiopians here in this region. And Africa is a sleeping giant economically. And so I think it is wise for for Denver to connect there one day. And so I thought I would I really only know a little bit of Swahili. I don't know the other languages, but I'm gonna try and just say hi in each of the languages and then we pass it on to my other colleagues. But in Swahili, if you recall, you'll say near Haji. That means what's up? If you are just off the plane and you just can't go on a safari, you probably say jumbo. And if if if, you know, you have a little understanding about East Africa, you say Abadi. And in Ethiopia, if you kind of green like me, you say Salaam. Salaam. Is that right? Okay, good. Shaking the head. And then everybody knows in Japanese. Konichiwa. So we are grateful to be to have relationships and we want to continue to grow them. Thank you guys so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 6: About 40 years ago, my father was on the board of the Sister Cities program and developed a relationship with Brest, France. And as a result, when I was growing up, we had a man who was in graduate school, live in our house from Brest, France. He worked for my father, and over all of these years, my family has remained close to their family. Their children, their nephews and nieces have all come to live with us. They've lived all over the country and with my family members. And it's been an incredible experience having those strong family connections to Brest, France. And I have told Councilman Brooks and the mayor that I hope to also reinvigorate the program also with Brest, France. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Katherine Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I'd like to have my name added to the proclamation and just mention that I've had an opportunity to go to Takayama, which is a beautiful city. I know one of our other sister cities that's not mentioned. Here is the city of Cuernavaca, which I've also had the opportunity to travel to. And I can remember under Mayor Webb, we actually donated a truck, a fire truck to the city of Cuernavaca. And Councilman Hiawatha Davis was the one who brought forth the adoption of the city of Aksum, Ethiopia, to be added to the sister city program. So we've had long and rich history with these relationships with other countries, and I think it is important that we continue to celebrate and expound on those efforts so that we can. You know, it's a smaller world today than it used to be. And our airport has played a major role in that process of bringing us all closer together and the fact that we have people where we can go to these cities and be able to reach out when we're doing expansion of direct flights and creating business opportunities. And I know with some of the communities in Japan, we've actually had some cultural exchanges where we have students from each city travel to both cities. And so those kinds of opportunities, I think, go a long way in building bridges between, you know, our country and our cities and those cities and those countries. And I think it helps work towards a greater appreciation of how to get along with one another. And so, Councilman Brooks, I want to thank you for bringing this forward and let's go forth and see how this can keep growing. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I also wanted to thank Councilman Burks for bringing this forward. I believe building the relationships with other.
Speaker 5: Countries.
Speaker 6: Is very important and it's very personal. My children are quarter Japanese and we just got done hosting a Japanese.
Speaker 5: Exchange student, Heena.
Speaker 6: Sato, who will forever be one of my children for ten months in our home. And that relationship will always be there, it will always grow. And I look forward to working with all of the different sister cities to make sure that we're able to host students here in the United States and building that cultural competency, I think , for our families.
Speaker 5: But then also for those students when they go.
Speaker 6: Back, because it really opens.
Speaker 5: Their.
Speaker 6: Eyes. But ours as well. And so. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Please add my name to this proclamation. And I'm just going to speak just because it's just coincidental. And I'm my butcher some languages in the process. But prior to entering council, I was doing affordable housing development, particularly in Stapleton. And the models of the units that we're building are actually have derivations from the languages from all three of these cities that are recognized. So because of that coincidence, I'm going to go ahead and mention and we could be totally wrong in our research, but the models are Koti, Uchi and Bette, which. Hit all those generally those areas. I got some nods. And one of the other models since you mentioned Cuernavaca is also the CASA. And that was by design. We're trying to we were trying to make an inclusive product and bring introduce a little bit of diversity into Stapleton. A little bit more diversity into Stapleton. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Sponsoring the proclamation. I think we've discussed a few times about how we expand this program, how we participate, but mostly how we expand it and how we develop new sister cities and countries all over the all over the world. And that's a good thing. The cultural exchange is good. When we when we look at the economic potential, that's a great thing. The fact that we can, you know, create nonstop plays of some of these countries is is outstanding. But we mustn't forget that Denver has a very diverse population. And a lot of the folks who are our sister cities like Ethiopia, like the country, like like Mexico and.
Speaker 4: Like.
Speaker 1: Parts of Asia, you know, it's.
Speaker 8: Important.
Speaker 1: That we not only just recognize the cultural impact and relevance here in our district, in our city, but we also have to recognize the plight of the people who live in our city and that they struggle and they struggle here in this country as well, too. They face discrimination. They face a lot of cultural barriers and and oftentimes violence. And I think it's important incumbent upon us as as we recognize our our sisterhood with these cities that and we we develop these relationships, but we also make sure that we strengthen life, strengthen and improve community life for a lot of the folks who are here in our country and call our country home. Although we as a as a city and county recognize this important relationship, there's still a lot of folks out there that don't. And a lot of folks economically and socially are still treated like second class citizens. And we have to make sure that when we develop these relationships. That they are also that we're also we also have their back when it comes to that as well. Too far, too many times I've seen a lot of folks who are taken advantage of because they are new to this country. And despite seeing their flag here on the second and third floor in our city, there's still a lot of work to be done. And I think that's where this definitely helps. You know, I could think of a community in in Westwood where we have folks who live in come from different countries and didn't really talk.
Speaker 4: Didn't really get along.
Speaker 1: Were kind of siloed. But they are.
Speaker 4: One thing in common and that was gardening and.
Speaker 1: The West Wood projects. And one of the things that we realized in order to break down some of these barriers, strengthen community, was to create a community garden. Or they all work together side by side and they develop this relationship. So every.
Speaker 4: Month they have.
Speaker 1: A festival, harvest festival where everybody's sharing each other's food and it's amazing. And that's the kind of spirit I think this starts with the sister cities. There's a big responsibility with that socially as well, too. So I'm very happy to see this this proclamation move forward.
Speaker 4: And I'm glad. Councilman Brooks, that you've carried that flag.
Speaker 1: You've carried those flags forward. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Brooks Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi Gilmore. I Cashman. I can eat Lopez. New Ortega. Assessment. Black eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please cast a vote in as a result.
Speaker 2: 3913.
Speaker 1: 8691 is adopted. Councilman Brooks, is there someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 4: You know, there is. And I but I just want to say, because I think Councilman Ortega brought it up and I see Rosemary Yogi in the audience we selected for young people for Manuel in 2012 to go on the trip with us to Kenya. And Rosemary is from Kenya. She lives in Denver now, but she has a restaurant in Nairobi that she she hosted our our young people. To this day, these kids still talk about that experience. And so just thank you thank you so much for your your love and support and for changing those kids lives. Now, for the leader of the older sister cities who's just doing so much on a shoestring budget, it's budget season. I want to bring up Beth Hendricks. Done a great job and.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Thank you for this honor and recognizing these historic relationships and anniversaries. With me is Steve Comstock, representing the 55 year old Takayama relationship. In these 55 years, we've held countless exchanges with both adults and students to learn from and celebrate both Japanese and American cultures, including a biannual student exchange, an annual artist exchange. And we've created and maintained business relationships that have catalyzed the nonstop flight to Tokyo and expanded trade. Steve.
Speaker 4: Don't know what I got, though, cause I'm a star. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Rosemary Yuki, representing our 40 year old sisterhood with Nairobi, Kenya. Currently, this historic relationship focuses on governmental exchange and assisting Nairobi's very young two year old municipal government in establishing best practices and effective processes. We also offer direct microloans to individual entrepreneurs in Nairobi and recently refurbished an elementary school in the Madaraka slum. Rosemary. Hum jambo.
Speaker 4: So the.
Speaker 5: Replies.
Speaker 4: To dumbo hum jumbo. A two jumbo ham. Jumbo tenor. You will reply to Jumbo.
Speaker 5: How much Jumbo?
Speaker 4: Until Jumbo. How many jumbo tenor to jump? Yes, my name is Rosemary Yogi. I'm actually the fundraising and membership. Denver sister city, Nairobi. And I'm so happy to be here. Thank you.
Speaker 6: And Sagi Hailu, founder of our 20 year relationship with Axum, Ethiopia. This sisterhood has offered Denver rights opportunities for Ethiopian voluntourism in partnership with Project Cure, as well as the successful, successful donation of a septic pumping truck and lots of local cultural programing for the 30,000 Ethiopian diaspora in the metro area. Sagi.
Speaker 0: But I'm not mistaken. I actually.
Speaker 6: Denver's sister cities is proud to manage and administer Denver's 12 sister and friendship cities worldwide. Our most visible celebration of these treasured relationships is our worldwide festival to be held this Sunday in the DC Galleria from 1030 to 5:00. This free, family friendly festival will feature the music, dance, food, languages, fashion and stories of our 12 sister cities. I hope you can each make it. Each of you also received a complimentary ticket to our kickoff reception on Saturday evening. This reception will showcase visiting delegations from our sister cities of Brest, France. Nairobi, Kenya. Kunming, China, Coronavac of Mexico and Karmiel, Israel. I hope to see you all there. I welcome and congratulate the newly elected members of city council and look forward to talking to you about sister cities. About half of you hold visible reminders of our sister city relationships in your districts, our sister city parks. I hope that those parks will create connections for you with a representative sister cities, because that's what sister cities is all about, connections across countries and cultures. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for that. All right. We are on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, are you please read the resolutions.
Speaker 2: From finance and services 639 resolution approving a proposed purchase order between city and county Denver Powerhouse Equipment Engineering Company concerning a boiler at Denver International Airport 645 Resolution approving impose on Coal Technology Services Agreement between City and County of Denver Digital Intelligent Systems, LLC Doing Business Dice's First Staff Augmentation Services from Governance and Charter Review 644 A
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing and celebrating the 55th anniversary of the Sister City relationship between Denver and Takayama, Japan; the 40th anniversary of the Sister City relationship between Denver and Nairobi, Kenya; and the 20th anniversary of the Sister City relationship between Denver and Axum, Ethiopia.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09282015_15-0651
|
Speaker 6: Sorry. Okay. I saw some some pausing. So the question is that the stock show is a really important project. You voted for the referral to the voters and we have several funding sources that we hope will be approved, both if the voters approve an extension of the lodgers tax, if the state approves a tax increment financing incentive of state sales taxes. And for me, those are really appropriate sources to use to fund the stock show. But the general fund is not, you know, that source. And so the case was made for my colleagues. You may remember that we had budget hearings. So so committees were canceled in this. This was something we were briefed by email. We did not have a chance to have a committee discussion. But I just wanted to ask whether there was a plan for paying the general fund back for any any funds used and how over time, we plan to keep track of purchases that really are for the stock show or expenditures for the stock show. So that at the end of the day, we can honestly very clearly contain and state what we have spent on that project without it kind of getting hidden in a bunch of individual transactions along the way. Right. I want to be able to kind of have a neat package. So so if you can address either or both of those questions. Sure. Happy to. Skye Stewart Mayor's Office. As Council Councilwoman Canete said, we did a lot of this via email and thanks for allowing us to move forward quickly. This will be paid back with assuming the ballot measure passes with the bond proceeds. So the general fund will be paid back in 2016. Per your request, we are going to memorialize that. So I know Budget and the DCC team are working on a memorandum of understanding between the two for that payback that we'll be happy to provide a copy of to you as well. And then to your second point, Kelly is not here tonight, but he is presenting Wednesday on his budget. And I had asked him flagged for him to talk about project tracking. He and Todd, when Scott, his deputy, have a whole system for the six different projects of the NBCC and how they match up the funds they're using with that correct projects that we're staying on top of it. And I believe he will discuss that in budget hearings Wednesday. Excellent. Thank you very much. And I do appreciate the responsiveness to to document the kind of debt, if you will, owed from one city fund to another. And I think that is appropriate. So I am very supportive of this moving forward. And I look forward to kind of the more details on on tracking over time. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Councilman Brooks, you have a question or comment?
Speaker 4: Yeah. You know, this is just a comment and I'll let Jeff Steinberg answer if I if I if I fell on this. But I just wanted since councilwoman can each brought it up, you know, obviously we pass the master plan. I just want to catch up to public real quick. We we passed the master plan of the National Western Center and it talked about acquiring some property. And this particular this particular parcel came up a little bit quicker than we when we all saw it. And we saw it as a great opportunity. And that's why we are taking advantage of it now, not trying to rush anything through council, but this is a great opportunity for us to commence on a project that received full support of this council. So just want to kind of catch everybody up on that. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. You know, the questions are comments. Six 5116 Imam Secretary, you go on to the next one. 625 Councilman Espinosa, what would you like for us to do with this? I just had a comment. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4: So we can say, even though a motion at committee failed to encourage mediation, I'm happy to say that the applicant has voluntarily entered into mediation. That begins October 5th. So I'm encouraged and I wish them the best of luck in that process. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right, we've got one more. I believe, Madam Secretary, 614. Councilman Flynn, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to have this called out for a separate vote so that I can abstain.
Speaker 1: Certainly. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you make the motions for us this evening?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President, thank you.
Speaker 1: Would you please have 614 placed on final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: I move that.
Speaker 5: Council bill 614 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. This bill is an intergovernmental agreement with urban drainage and flood control district. It is a very worthwhile project and partnership that will do flood control up around 56th and Tower and Pena Boulevard. My former employer, Regional Transportation District, is a funding partner to it. So under the city's ethics code, I. I'm abstaining from voting on it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Any other comments on 614? Scene nine Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Flynn Gilmore I Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Sussman. Black eye. Brooks. Clark. Espinosa. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I am Brooks. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting results.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes, one abstention.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes, one. Attention. 614 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. I believe that all the bills that were called out so we were ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman Gilmore, were you pleased with their resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in block.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to the Capital Improvement and Capital Maintenance Fund.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves a $2 million supplemental appropriation request from the General Fund 2015 Contingency Fund for the acquisition of property to support the proposed master plan area of the National Western Stock Show redevelopment in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 9-17-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08312015_15-0570
|
Speaker 2: One needs 571 council members. Can each and Flynn get them wrong? Looks good. Madam Secretary, can you take the first 1500 Catherine McInnis, would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I had just a comment, and I actually was planning to do it on both bills at the same time. But since my colleague has called out Council Bill 571, I'll just do them separately. Sure, go ahead. My comments really apply to both Council Bill 570 is the contract between Denver and the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority for the creation of our first revolving loan fund for affordable housing. And I first want to thank especially my returning council members because the funding for this this new fund was a direct result, I think, of several years of budget advocacy from this council to put at first 3 million in 2014 and then another 3 million in 2015 and make that available to the department. My kudos to the Department Office of Economic Development for leveraging those dollars to create a $10 million fund out of our 6 million. So they grew it by four with partnerships with the state. And we are going to be able to build, you know, some really important workforce rental housing with this fund. We know it's not enough. And I call out my my colleague, Councilman Brooks, with whom we've been working with the mayor. Some of you may have seen the piece in The Post this Sunday, but this is a really important first step to getting workforce rental housing built in the city of Denver. And I really want to thank the department for their work. We have several developments ready to go I'm sure we'll be seeing in quick succession. But it's an important moment to just take a pause and say this is our first time really having our own local funding source and being aggressive about this and more of that to come as we continue the conversation about a permanent source. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman, and must give kudos to you and Councilman Brooks for leading the charge from the council from that perspective. Right. Madam Secretary, you want to get to the second one in 571 and so, Councilwoman, can each other, Councilman Flynn, where either one of you wanted to call that out for a vote? No. Okay. We'll start with comments in council.
Speaker 10: Thank you. The second bill is also a piece of a really multi-pronged strategy to expand access to affordable housing. In this case, by keeping the housing, we already have many of our tax credit projects and other things that were built with public money. They only are designated as affordable between 2030, every now and then 40 years, which means that they expire and we have more than 4500 units. I first want to acknowledge some of the private partners. We have Urban Land Conservancy and Enterprise Community partners who worked with the Office of Economic Development to commission the study that really tried to get a handle on how many units we were at risk of losing and ways that we could strengthen our laws. And so this ordinance was something the mayor mentioned in his inaugural speech just July. What was that, 2010? And here we are just a month later, passing this ordinance, hopefully on first reading I'm counting on all year. And so this is, again, a really important step in the right direction to keep the housing we have by making sure the city gets a right of first refusal to buy any properties that are expiring and making sure that there are good notice provisions when people are thinking about selling those buildings. So a really important piece of legislation for our overall approach to affordable housing. And again, thank you to the department as well as to the community partners for bringing this to the Council's attention. I plan on supporting it in the black vote. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn, Europe.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I will also be supporting them in a block vote. I just wanted to use this particular council bill as well as there are several others that the staff took a lot of time to work in committee and then also to meet with me separately. And then I had some nagging questions over the weekend and emailed this morning and I just wanted to commend the staff for being so prompt at Sky. Thank you. And and from your end. And Jen Wellborn also for helping me out here. I just wanted to commend the excellent work of staff. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman, I take it you're up.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to add my comments of appreciation to Councilman Brooks and Councilwoman Kenney for their efforts in continuing to work work on this very important issue. I can remember back when the inclusionary housing ordinance was adopted, we had a group called S.O.S. that represented folks living in HUD housing, and they wanted to make sure that there were some protections in place. And that's where the original notification came from, so that anybody who had Section eight funding on their apartment buildings would have to notify the city if they were planning to opt out from continuing to operate that housing for Section eight tenants. And so to see that, you know, we've we've come back to 2015 and we're still dealing with the same issue in making sure that we have all government funded projects included in the notification. And it's really important. You know, we are losing apartment buildings in this city. If they are low income or affordable projects in my neighborhood, most of them have disappeared. The only ones that still exist are these protected properties. And so to know that we're including all of these in the city is really important to preserving the affordable housing that is still left in this city. And the work to create the fund with the previous ordinance is critically important. We all know people who have kids coming back from college or family members that are struggling that can't afford to live in the city. And, you know, it's important that we have some strong policies. I still would love to see our housing ordinance or housing plan be adopted so that we've got some clear guidelines for the development community, and it would provide some predictability for them and for the neighborhoods. But that's for another discussion, another time. But I just want to thank everyone who has worked on this, the administration, our Office of Economic Development for, you know, just making this a priority. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Kathryn Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Yeah, sorry. I just I want to I do want to commend everybody that worked on this. I do think they're good measures and I'll be supporting them. But I don't want anyone to think that this is these solve anything. We still have a very, very tough situation, particularly in my district where these properties are. Turning over and people are getting displaced and they get stuck in limbo between caring, basically paying the funds, the carrying costs for developers, intent on moving their plans forward. Well, people can't actually migrate and move into other subsidized housing projects. And so there's other things that we need to structurally fix. These are two measures that go a step in the right direction. But there are still other things that we as a council will need to be tackling. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. In other comments, questions 571 seen none. All that was all that were called out. So we are ready for the black vote. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Lopez, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President, for a move that resolutions 579, 572, five, 82, five, 83, five, 76, five, 77.
Speaker 7: Five, 86, 28.
Speaker 9: All series of 2015 be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Flynn I Gilmore. I Cashman. I can each. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Susman. I black eye. Brooks.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. I can each. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: All right, Madam Secretary, please collectively announce the results to advice. Advisory resolutions have been adopted in the BLOCK Council. One final consideration on the floor for final passage in block.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bills. 498, five or three.
Speaker 2: But now those two those two are for the public hearings. Oh, so that's right.
Speaker 9: Those first two. Darn it. That's almost going to be the public. Okay, Scott, I move that council bill 561 five or two 565, five, 67, 569 all series of 2015 be placed upon final consideration and do pass in bulk.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Seen no comment. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Kenny Lopez. I knew. ORTEGA Right. SUSSMAN Black. BROOKS Espinosa. FLYNN Hi, Gilmore. CASHMAN Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Councilmembers. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the vote and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12.
Speaker 2: 12 hours. The bills placed on final consideration do pass in the block. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 503, changing the zoning classification for 22 South Adams Street and 44 South Adams Street. Reminder, it is council's intent to postpone final consideration for Council Bill 498 changing the zoning classification for 6502 East Union Avenue with its public hearing to Monday, September 21st. If you are here to speak on that matter, we please ask that you return on that date. However, anyone wishing to speak on Council Bill 503, please see the Council Secretary to receive our speaker card to fill out and return to her during the recess of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we'll take a 5050 minute recess.
Speaker 0: Coverage of this week's council meeting will continue once the public signs up to speak on scheduled agenda items. We'll take this time to look at what's still ahead, as well as preview additional meetings for the week and share some other items of interest. We'll be back with more meeting coverage in a few moments. There are two public hearings on this agenda. Council Bill 498 Rezone 6502 East Union Avenue and Council Bill 503 Free Zones 22 South Adam Street and 44 South Adam Street. Action on this agenda is just ahead. In the meantime, let's take a look at items in other meetings. Denver eight. We'll also cover this week. Every Tuesday morning, the mayor presents agency proposals and invites council to discuss policy. Join Denver eight as we bring you this meeting live at 9:30 a.m. with scheduled replays that evening at 930 and again Friday at 8 a.m.. Please note that when committees consider changes to the municipal code or policy, a public comment period of 15 minutes will be held on the measure with 2 minutes provided to each speaker. Please sign up beginning 30 minutes prior to the committee's scheduled start time. Tuesday morning's coverage continues with a 10:30 a.m. meeting of the Business Development Committee. Watch live at that time will catch replays Tuesday evening at 8:30 p.m. or Friday at 9 a.m. and Sunday afternoon at 1230. Tuesday's coverage continues each afternoon when the Safety and Well-Being Committee meets at 130. Replays of this council group are shown Tuesday night at 6:30 p.m., Friday morning at 10:30 a.m. and again Sunday at 2 p.m.. Wednesday morning begins with a session of the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee at 10:30 a.m..
|
Resolution
|
Approves a Master Funding Agreement with Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) paid out of the Revolving Affording Housing Loan Fund (RAHLF) for the administration, underwriting and servicing of the City’s Revolving Affordable Housing Loan Fund (RAHLF). The costs will be covered by borrowers from the fund in the form of application and origination fees and a portion of the interest paid by borrowers. (SAFETY AND WELL-BEING) Approves a Master Funding Agreement with Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) paid out of the Revolving Affording Housing Loan Fund (RAHLF) for the administration, underwriting and servicing of the City’s Revolving Affordable Housing Loan Fund (RAHLF). The costs will be covered by borrowers from the fund in the form of application and origination fees and a portion of the interest paid by borrowers. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on -15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 8-18-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08312015_15-0503
|
Speaker 2: Speakers are prohibited from using profanity or making personal attacks during their comments, and speakers must refrain from applauding. All right. First, I'm going to start with Ford 98 with our intention to postpone. But first, we need to put that on the floor. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill for 98 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 498 be placed upon final consideration to pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sussman, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that.
Speaker 5: Final consideration of Council Bill 498 with this public hearing be postponed to Monday, September 21st.
Speaker 2: Oh, wait. For technology.
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm sorry. You have to go ahead.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, ma'am.
Speaker 4: That's chaos.
Speaker 2: Which is what you later. Okay. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 10: At the request of community planning and development, the public hearing needs to.
Speaker 5: Be postponed in order to meet.
Speaker 10: Noticing requirements.
Speaker 2: All right. Short and sweet. Thank you. Any other comments on the postponement? Scene nine Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Sussman. I Black Brooks.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Espinosa, I Flynn I Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Please close the vote. And now the results. 1212 Eyes for 98 with its public hearing have been postponed to Monday, September 21st, 2015. All right. Next, we're on to the actual public hearing, which is on 503. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill five of three on the floor?
Speaker 9: Thanks, Mr. President. I move the council bill five or ten 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Council Bill 503 approval approves the Zoning Map Amendment. The Council is required by law to conduct public hearings on zoning map amendments and Council's actions are subject to a court review in order to provide a record for the court reviewed testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become part of the record. The public hearing for Council Bill 503 is now open. May we have a staff report?
Speaker 6: Good evening, members of Council. I am a barge with the city of Denver's Department of Community Planning and Development, and I'm here to walk you through the request for a map amendment or rezoning at 22 through 44 South Adams Street, which is in Council District ten in the Cherry Creek Statistical neighborhood, 22 to 44. South Adams, the site you see outlined on the slide here is bound by South Adams Street, East Ellsworth Avenue and East Bayard Avenue. It's one block east of the Cherry Creek Shopping Center and the Cherry Creek Greenway. It's across the street to the across the street to the south is the Polaski Park and Gates Tennis Center. The site is immediately adjacent to two RTD routes. There are additional RTD routes along Steel Street, a block away. The property is just under 1.5 acres. There are 211,000 square feet of buildings on the site now. The property owner is requesting rezoning to allow an increase in the floor area allowed on site over the floor area that's allowed on site by the existing plan, unit development or PWD. So just to get into the requested district is GMU. 12. It's in the general urban neighborhood context. That's the G. The EMU is multi-unit with a 12 storey maximum height. I'll walk you through a little bit of the existing context, starting with the existing zoning, which on the site is pegged right now to the north and west. The sites there are zoned GM you 12, which is the district requested by the applicant to the south is zoned open space to the east is a different PD PD 183, which is for the seasons apartment complex, a large mid-rise and high rise apartment complex. And to the northwest there is some mixed use zoning. So just to talk a little bit about the existing zoning rules that apply on the site. PD 75, was established in 1982. It was taken out of the former Chapter 59 hour three zone district. It has a height, maximum of 75 feet. It has a land coverage maximum. The area of the site that can be covered by buildings and impervious surfaces like parking lots, is a little over 52,000 square feet. And then there's a maximum floor area on the site of 221,000 square feet. A little over that, the use allowed on site is residence for older adults. This is the covered senior living facility and the parking required on site is 0.24 parking places per dwelling unit. The Cranmer Park View plane also applies to the site. The site is downhill enough from the origin point of the view plane here though, that that viewpoint plane limits maximum heights on the site to 150 to 159 feet approximately, which is above the maximum height limit of the requested zone district. And so the view plane doesn't really factor into isn't really a limiting factor on the site or wouldn't be if the site were resolved. The existing land use on site is multifamily high rise, which is consistent with much of the nearby land use. There of course to the south is open space and then nearby about a half block away, there's some office uses and a little bit further away, of course, the Cherry Creek Shopping Center, there's commercial uses as well in the existing context. Looking up and down Adams Street here you see the existing covered senior living complex and there are two joined buildings that are part of the complex. The taller of the two buildings is eight stories. That was the original building and then the after the PUD was adopted, a second building was built to to the south that's linked together. And you can see here there's a limited single row of parking in between Adams Street and the buildings. The rest of the parking is provided behind the buildings off of the alley. As you see in the lower left slide. They're looking at some of the nearby buildings on the upper right. That is a 16 story residential building that's directly across the street from the site, directly across Ellsworth to the north. And then in the on the lower right, that slide, we're looking north on Adams Street. And that that taller building on the left is part of the covered senior living complex. That is not part of this Map amendment application. They're only looking at the buildings on the right hand side of that picture, which are in the pad on the left hand side. That part of their complex is already zoned GMU 12. And that's that building that's across the street that's part of covered on the upper right. And then on the lower right, there is part of the seasons complex, which is the high rise residential complex that's just to the east across the alley. So looking at the process, there's been several points of notification to registered neighborhood organizations and to the counsel office. And also signage was posted on the site prior to the planning board hearing as well as prior to this hearing. I'll walk you through the review criteria for this MAP amendment. Starting with consistency with adopted plans. The plans that apply on this site are comprehensive comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and the Cherry Creek Cherry Creek Area Plan excuse me, Comprehensive Plan 2000 defines Cherry Creek as an urban center, and it says that an urban center is a place with an opportunity to concentrate population and land uses within a limited geographic scope. Comprehensive Plan 2000 says a number of other things that that are relevant to this rezoning about reusing existing sites where infrastructure is already in place and you'll see those in your staff report. Moving to Blueprint Denver The concept land use for this site is regional center, which is intended to include a balance of retail, employment and residential uses. It is located in a Blueprint Denver area of stability. As you can see on the map there, those hatchet lines indicate area of change. And so there's areas of change mapped very nearby on nearly all sides of this property as part of the Cherry Creek Area Plan implementation process. This property was actually and the immediate surroundings were taken out of being designated as an area of change. They were previously within Blueprint Denver with the recognition that the high density residential character of this particular area was desirable to retain in place. So those areas of stability are, as you know, places that have been identified to maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. The future street classifications mapped in Blueprint Denver are residential collector for East Bayard and then the other adjoining streets are both on designated locals. And the language that's used in Blueprint Denver about these street types primarily relates to them being used to access properties and to serve as transit routes for pedestrians and bicyclists as opposed to being regional. All types of corridors for transit. Steele Street, a block away to the west, is designated as an enhanced transit corridor by Blueprint Denver, where the goal is to increase transit ridership, improve service and transit efficiency. So get to the recent, relatively recent 2012 Cherry Creek Area Plan that actually looks at sub areas within Cherry Creek and places this site within the Cherry Creek East Sub area. One of the things it says about Cherry Creek East is that it's a highly desirable, moderate density residential neighborhood that also includes a high density office and residential district on its western edge, which is kind of that more purple hatched area where this site is located. And then it talks a little bit more about the character of that particular part of Cherry Creek East. Talking about the area west of Madison where this site is located, it says the district supports primarily high rise residential and office uses with buildings reaching 16 stories. It's really talking about the existing context there, the concept or future height map that's in the plan. You see on the right hand side of that slide, that dark purple area where the site is located, says that the desirable concept land use for this site is 12 stories. Another interesting recommendation of the Cherry Creek Area plan is that it specifically calls out the existing pods that are in the Cherry Creek East area for potential rezoning as opportunities arise and with property owner interest that there's an opportunity to work together with the city to determine the appropriate base. Denver Zoning Code District that will serve to implement the Cherry Creek Area Plan. So we have an opportunity to do that tonight. So we would find KPD staff that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with the adopted plans that apply to the site and then looking at uniformity of district regulations. The next criteria the requested zone MAP Amendment improves uniformity of zone district regulations by rezoning to a standard zone district. That applies to other very similar properties nearby, including the the remainder of the covered project across the street. And we find also that the project furthers public health, safety and welfare. Looking next at justifying circumstances. The applicant has indicated that changed circumstances or changed changing character is the justifying circumstance. And some of the things that have changed since this PD was adopted quite some time ago are the adoption of multiple new plans. All of the plans that we just talked about were adopted after that PD was created. So all of those recommendations didn't factor into that PD. Also, of course, the adoption of the new 2010 Denver zoning code. That creates a whole new range of districts that provide opportunities to this site. And then also, as we all know, the general Cherry Creek area has been changing and there's been a lot of redevelopment and there's a need for potential flexibility to keep pace with the changing character of the area. And then just moving back to the last criteria. Consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. This is looking at the intent statements for the neighborhood context and zone district that the applicant seeks to rezone to in the Denver Zoning Code. Some of the things that the code says about the GMU U12 district, it states that they're appropriate for residential for areas with residential uses that are primarily located along local and residential arterial streets, for areas with a regular pattern of blocks and street grids as well as alleys that the character of the area that is covered by the zoned district would include residential buildings with a consistent shallow to moderate front setback. And that moderate, high to high residential building heights are typical in that area. At the Planning Board public hearing in early July, the planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval, finding that all applicable review criteria had been met, and CPD also recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met and I would be happy to answer questions. And we also have the applicant here as well to answer questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. All right. So we have three speakers lined up and I'll call all three. You can make your way to the front pew. Sean Maley, Michael Klein and Susan Smirnoff. You can make your way up and Mr. Maley, you can go ahead and begin your remarks when ready.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Madam Members. City Council. My name is Sean Maley. 1660 Lincoln and I'm serving as applicant representative for Covered Senior Living. And as you heard from Abe's staff report, this is a rezoning to Jim you 12 from PDS 75 from 1982. And unlike many rezoning applications which are in order to accommodate new development, this application is not necessarily for new development per se, but to accommodate for renovation of carloads properties that is currently ongoing. Codes update to the properties is mainly interior, but there is an exterior circulation walkway on the outside of the building that put us over the threshold of the PDS lot coverage allowance. And so this 900 square foot walkway goes from the south building to the east building, but you should call the east the north building because it's the to the north and south buildings on the lot. So currently residents wishing to circulate between the two buildings either have to go outside or go through the dining area, which oftentimes the covered will have activities going on in the dining area. So that circulation disrupts that. So the purpose of this rezoning application, when we met with staff about this renovation project was to rezone in order to accommodate this development. Again, we have no other plans to redevelop the site other than the current project that has been submitted. And we also worked closely with the Cherry Creek East Neighborhood Association that is here supporting us tonight. So I'll keep it short and sweet. If you have any questions about the rezoning process or the application, I'm happy to answer those. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Maley. Next, we have Michael Kline.
Speaker 7: Good evening. I'm Michael Klein. I'm the executive director of Commode Signor Life. I live at 1795 Locust. Just a few facts were nonprofit, were located in Cherry Creek East. And we provide affordable and subsidized senior housing for people, seniors, 62 years and older. We provide social services, meals, transportation activities, exercise a full range services. We were established in 1971 and we have every reason to stay where we were at. We actually recently renegotiated with HUD, so we're around for at least another 15 years, which is really good. As Sean mentioned, we've been spending a lot of money in upgrading the facility, making sure that it meets the needs of our seniors in doing this project. We really wanted the circulation, which would allow residents to go back and forth between the building without having to go outside, without having to go through the dining room. We never thought when we started the project that it would be a six month rezoning process because we were short by only 132 square feet. But so be it. We're here. I think, as I mentioned, this project will really add to the life of the seniors that live within our building. We work very closely with the community. Cherry Creek East Association is here to support us and we worked with Councilwoman Robb in the past and with Council Man new now and I think that's about it. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Klein. Thanks. Susan Smirnoff.
Speaker 10: Mr. President, members of the council. I'm Susan Smirnoff, 240 South Madison Street. I'm here representing Cherry Creek East Association tonight. Cherry Creek supports the proposed rezoning to GMU 12 hour or no had several are much I will say thoughtful outreach. We emailed the 400 person email list that we had with information about the rezoning. We invited any and all community members, not only in our neighborhood but in surrounding neighborhoods, to come to our board meeting where Covered was very gracious to host the meeting and answered all questions that we had. We also did special outreach to Mountain Shadows, which is the abutting R and excuse me away that is next to Covered. We also did special outreach to Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association because we share an area plan with them. There was no OP as well. I would say there was only one person who just didn't support any rezonings of any sort, but otherwise there was unanimous support both from the neighborhood and from the board. We recognize that the request is in conformance with the Cherry Creek Area Plan and other adopted plans and in consideration of public outreach. Cherry Creek East Association was unanimously in support of the Capote request. We would add that we very much appreciate a door and love having covered in our neighborhood, and we can't say thank you enough. I would say that if helpful to anyone, what triggered this rezoning? If Michael and I were to stand up, hold hands and stretch our arms out and spin in a circle, that much space is about what triggered this. So in essence, we kind of said, Well, okay, fine. So we're good to go. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Smirnoff. All right. That concludes our speakers. And we are now for questions. Any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Can I speak to a barge, please? High aim is a variance process, not not a tool that you can use on a party.
Speaker 6: It would potentially be an option. However, that's a particularly potentially unpredictable scenario.
Speaker 7: But that's the owners decision, correct? What's that? That's up to the property owner to make that determination. All right. That was it. No further questions. All right. I have a question actually have questions for a mr. Klein and Mr. Maley. Actually. Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein, I'm sorry that you ended up in a six month process. Are you familiar with the Board of Adjustments and the variance process? Could you repeat that again? Are you familiar with the variance process in the Board of Adjustment? Not until the process came up and we engaged Sean to help us walk through the process. So why did you choose to go through the six month rezoning process as opposed to probably a far less costly and more expeditious Bowa process prior to embarking on the rezoning process? I think at least in our initial one, what we had heard was that this was the way the city was recommending. Also, we talked with the city and they were saying that they were looking to move everyone to follow the plan that had been established and they would support that. So we felt that was the safer way to go. Okay, I. I can't speak for the board, but I did sit on it 132 feet on a 900 square foot addition on a building this size. Probably going to find some support there. The legitimate hardship, if the idea is binding you, I think. You think Mr. Malley or Maley. That Malley or Maley mainly. Sorry Sean. So. Yeah. Just simply y you know, if, if you were advising your, your, your, your owner, why did you select the redevelopment, I mean the rezoning route as opposed to the far simpler, less costly board of adjustment around.
Speaker 6: So to my knowledge, plans were submitted on the renovation project and actually a number of reviews had taken place and some sign off. And it was actually actually somewhat mid-stream that zoning realized that there was this 132 square foot delta between the Pudi and the zoning. I can't speak for all those meetings because I wasn't engaged that time. I'm not sure if the Board of Adjustment Process came up at that time, but when we did sit down with staff and had a pre-application meeting, you know, the policy of rezoning towards this was, of course, in February of of this year. You know, the policy of of coming into the new code and rezoning into standard new code districts was encouraged. It's included in the Cherry Creek Area plan. So that was the path that we followed. You know, I think you bring up a good point in the Board of Adjustment. I'm not familiar right now. I know you served on it with the hardship criteria, so I can't cite those off the top of my head. But we were, you know, a combination of being midway through the process or not midway, but into the process and following the direction of city staff found that the rezoning met the criteria and the guidance from the plans, and that's just what we pursued.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and I'm only looking at this from a taxpayer so thing that's a lot of city resources investing in staff to to sort of go through these presentations and all of that when this is a pretty cut and dry hardship. You had overwhelming support from the Arnaud's and sort of all the different players there strongly encourage you to use that tool on future insignificant changes like this. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Yep.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. That's another.
Speaker 8: Yes. My question.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. One that I just made with my computer. All right. So any other questions? 503. Seen none. Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman. New?
Speaker 6: Yes, I really I know the coverage staff and I'm really pleased to support the rezoning tonight. And and as you know, covered means honor or respect. And in my interactions with how the staff treats residents is just that with honor and respect. And I'm just so proud of having this organization in the Cherry Creek community. It's a wonderful nonprofit organization and like Mr. Classy has been around since the, you know, gosh, through the seventies and so provides wonderful services for senior citizens and very unique example for Cherry Creek of having low income housing in Cherry Creek is it's almost an oxymoron. So it's a wonderful, wonderful example and we're so proud to have them in our community. As I had sort of fun when I was doing my campaign, I went over to converse and talk to the residents and they are so wonderful and talented and smart and and I said how I remember going the first night , going to their dining area, and they were so chatty and so glad that we were there. And, and I went to the first table and they all smile, their motherly looks and, you know, very charming and sweet. And the first lady says to me, What do you do about that damn parking? So I said, Well, they are on their on target. They're so smart. I had one of the roses send me a 20 page thesis on how to improve transit in our city. So they are so intelligent, so, so smart. I'm so proud to be a part of that community with them in our organization. So I'm really proud to support the rezoning effort and look forward to seeing how they provide greater services to our senior citizens. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Councilman, new councilman Ortega, you're up.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. This one is a no brainer. And I remember during the campaign process going over to Harvard as well and speaking with Mr. Klein, where he showed me this area that was going to need to go through a whole rezoning process. And there should be an easier way for us as a city to figure out how to fix these, you know, these little nuances that shouldn't have to require, you know, going through a lengthy and costly process. But I am happy to support this. I just wanted to say, Mr. New, I. Councilman knew when I when I was over there, the issue they were talking to me about was the concern about losing their Safeway store and and specifically the the ability to be able to get prescriptions and groceries from there because it's within walking distance. And I'm not sure what's happening with that, but they are very active and very vocal residents that live there and was happy to engage with them. And so I'm happy to support this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Or any other comment on 503? Scene none, ma'am. Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 4: New Ortega. Sussman Black Eye Brooks Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore Cashman. I can eat Lopez.
Speaker 9: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and ask the results.
Speaker 4: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. Five of three has been placed on final consideration and does pass on Monday, September 28, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 586, changing the zoning classification for 4245 Fox Street 4143 to 4159. Fox Street four 642 West 43rd AV 4211 Fox Street and 4205 Fox Street. Denver, Colorado 80216. Any protests against Council Bill 586 must be filed with the council offices no later than Monday, September 21st, due to the Labor Day holiday. The next time you'll see council as a whole will be on Monday, September 14th, 2015. Have a safe and happy holiday season. No other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 10: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 0: Denver eight. On TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
|
Bill
|
Rezones 22 South Adams Street and 44 South Adams Street from PUD 75 to G-MU-12 in Council District 10. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 22 South Adams Street and 44 South Adams Street from PUD 75 to G-MU-12 in Council District 10. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-22-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08242015_15-0522
|
Speaker 0: Could you please have 522 placed on final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 8: I move that council bill 522 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. We went all through this last week. This is the least with the Colorado Symphony. I voted no on it last week and I intend to vote no tonight. I do not believe that we need to extract $8,750 a month from this struggling organization when we're only evicting them from the building at the end of 2016 anyway. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Any other comments? 522. Scene nine. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, I. Cashman I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega I. Susman, I. Black I. Clark by.
Speaker 9: Espinosa No.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Councilman Cashman waiting on your vote. Got it. Thank you. Madam Secretary. Please close vote to announce the results.
Speaker 3: Ten eyes to name tonight.
Speaker 0: As soon as 522 has been placed on final consideration and do pass. I believe that's where all the bill is called out. So all of the bills for introduction are order published and we are ready for the block votes. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block?
Speaker 8: I move that resolution number 555, five, 57, 568 and 558 be ordered. Published.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Amendatory Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Symphony Association, for offices used by the Colorado Symphony Association.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Extends a lease agreement with the Colorado Symphony Association by fifteen months to 12-31-16 to occupy 1245 Champa Street and raises rent from one dollar annually to $5,000 per month plus reimbursement of operating expenses (FINAN-201311017-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-28-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08242015_15-0553
|
Speaker 0: public hearing and we would like to make sure we have time to get through all the speakers. As public hearings on Council Bill 553. So, Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put five, five, three on the floor.
Speaker 8: And move the council bill five, five, three be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: And wait for the screen to catch up. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing on five, five, three is now open and I will be given part of the staff report and I will be following. I will be followed by Deputy Mayor Carrie Kennedy and council members. There's not something in the computers but on your desk. Each of you have the staff report is a one pager front and back. The overview of the Council bill for Denver College Affordability. What we have before us that we'll be voting on is the Denver College Affordability Plan, a pay for performance model that focuses on student completion . Our decision tonight is whether or not to send this to the for referendum to the Denver voters this November 2015. The source of the funds will be a proposed .08 sales tax increase to generate 10 million annually to support Austin City funded nonprofit. Similar to what we have with the Denver Preschool Program, Kerry Kennedy. We'll talk more about its impact on our overall tax burden. There are two components for the use of the fund. The first deals with scholarship reimbursement. Scholarship organizations may apply annually for reimbursement grants for scholarships they provide to Denver students who have successfully completed the prior academic year. These organizations will provide a list of eligible students that they have helped, how much money they have spent for tuition, and the support services for each student, not on administration and operational costs. The support services can be reimbursed to that include academic tutoring, course, election, financial aid, guidance and mentoring and academic counseling programs. The ordinance describes that they can only be reimbursed on their privately raised funds and only up to a maximum 75% that they spend on each element. Student This ensures that they can actively fundraise and use this city program as leverage to develop their philanthropy. The second pillar second piece deals with grants for student loan debt relief. Not every student in need has a scholarship to support them. The Student Loan Debt Relief Program is designed to help lower the cost barriers to get to and complete. College eligible students can apply for a grant to assist with their student loan repayment based on a sliding scale. A Denver student can access up to $4,000 per year through these two programs. The sliding scale will ensure the funds go to the neediest. Students who have the highest barriers to getting to and through college eligible students must prove. Denver residency for at least three years attended an accredited technical skill technical school, community college or university in Colorado qualify for financial aid and meet household income criteria and be no older than 25 years old. From the transparency and accountability provisions, the ordinance outlines that the required annual reporting will go to the mayor, city council auditor and to the public as well. These auditor reports must include the number of full time and part time students that they are supporting data on student graduating and on track to graduate. And over time, the long term workforce impact. The program's records are public records and can be audited by the city auditor. There's a seven member, seven member board appointed by the mayor with city council approval. No more than 10% of the funds can be spent on administrative costs and until sales tax will expire in ten years. That is the overview of it. I will now ask our Deputy Mayor and CFO Carrie Kennedy to come talk how this possible increase would affect our overall tax burden.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. I'm Carrie Kennedy on the city's chief financial officer. I also served as Mayor Hancock's deputy. Thanks so much. When this proposal came forward, we took a look at how the proposed increase in Denver's sales tax rate would impact our city's taxpayers and also how it would impact the competitiveness of our city with respect to our overall tax burden. So, as you all know, the proposal proposes a sales tax rate increase of .08 percent. That's a little less than a penny on a $10 purchase. So first of all, the impact on Denver's taxpayers, we found that if this proposal were to be approved by Denver voters, that the sales tax rate here in Denver would not be substantial. Wholly different than what our citizens have been accustomed to paying. So there's a little bit of history. Back in 2011, if you'll recall, we had a stadium tax in place of 1%. It expired at the end of 2011. So at that time, the total sales tax rate combined that includes everything that somebody would pay if they buy something at a store in Denver was 7.72%. That dropped to 7.62% the day after that stadium tax rolled off. It has crept up incrementally lately in 2015, when the voters approved a slight increase to the Denver preschool program tax. So our current rate is 7.65%. If this proposal to fund college affordability in Denver were approved, our total combined sales tax rate in Denver would go to 7.73%. So sitting right on top of the 7.72% that it was for a very long time. So really no effective change in the sales tax rate over what people have been accustomed to paying. So then we also took a look at how does that 7.73%, if this were to be approved, how would that impact our competitiveness as a city, both in terms of sales taxes that we see across the region, in the metro area where people may elect to go shopping? But also how does it position Denver compared to other cities around the country? So in comparison to our neighboring jurisdictions, we looked at 25 jurisdictions that are adjacent to Denver and and here on the front range, we are currently the seventh lowest sales tax rate at our current rate. If this proposal were approved, we wouldn't change positions. We'd still be seventh lowest. Then you all may have seen there was a study that came out about ten days ago that compared tax burdens of all the cities in the United States with populations over 250,000 people. So hundreds of cities. Denver came in as one of the 15th lowest overall tax burden cities in the country. So we really aren't concerned from any kind of national standpoint either. If this were measure were to go forward. So I guess my message to all is you do have capacity to go ahead and move forward with this with confidence that it won't place any kind of tax burden on the city's residents and shoppers. It won't change what they're used to paying in taxes, and it also won't disadvantage the city in any way with respect to our competitive position. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Right. Before we go to our 13 speakers, council members just wanted to point out individuals in the audience who could be available for questions. We have Dan Slattery from the city attorney's office, who was instrumental in drafting this bill, as well as Antonio Perez from mayor's office, education and Policy for questions as well . And you're going to hear from the board chairs as I just see their names on the list. So for any questions that you might have, those are some individuals I just wanted to point out. All right. We have 13 speakers. I miscounted. I thought we had more earlier for this. So I'm going to call the first five and I can ask that you please make your way up to the front pew since we have under 20 speakers should not be an issue with the one hour courtesy public hearing. We'll get through everyone but the first five are happy Haines that techs Barbara Grogan, Irma Zamora and Steven Jordan. So if you five can make your way up to the front pew and we'll start with the honorable happy Haines, former councilwoman, former council president. You may begin.
Speaker 11: Good evening, council president herndon and members of the City Council. Thank you for the time and attention that you have given to this proposal over the past month. My name is Happy Haines. I live in the Park Hill neighborhood. As you know, I served on the city council for 13 years, and I also served on the Colorado Commission on Higher Education for nearly nine years. Tonight, I'm here as the co-chair of the Promoting Access to Higher Education Task Force, also co-chaired by my colleagues, Dr. Steven Jordan and Barbara Grogan. This task force worked for several months to develop the principles upon which this proposal is based in prior meetings with the City Council. You all asked very important questions and provided helpful feedback to us throughout all of these discussions. We all have agreed on one constant theme There is a problem. The costs of college are outpacing our residents ability to afford it, and it impacts our community. This problem is more severe today than it was in the sixties, seventies and eighties. Councilman Susman is right. The costs have escalated dramatically and student debt is much more severe severe burden today than in prior generations. Many Denver kids go on to college but complete their degree saddled with debt. Many go to college and do not complete their degree because of finances and are still saddled with debt, which is worse and to many simply do not go to college at all. These especially are the students that we aim to help. Unlike a generation or two ago, making a secure living and reaching the middle class with only a high school diploma is not only more difficult today, it is becoming rare. A higher education means more job opportunities, higher incomes, more contribution to public services, more civic engagement, and more resilience through economic ups and downs. The city has a myriad of needs, but Councilman Lopez's point last year, last week, is that there is a strong correlation between areas with severe infrastructure needs, low incomes and low levels of higher education attainment. The task force studied several alternatives a state solution, a city property tax, a property tax, or simply doing nothing and letting philanthropy pick up the slack, which we know today is not enough. The proposal before you tonight rose to the top as the best solution. It's implementable. It's performance based. And it is accountable to taxpayers in the next ten years. At least 30,000 students living in Denver will graduate from high school. Is that how long we wait for a state solution?
Speaker 0: Councilwoman, I apologize. Your time is up.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: That Texan.
Speaker 12: Sad tax of 4535. Julian Street, Denver, Colorado. Our constitutional system divides the responsibilities of government among levels so that just as in the construction of a building, all the work gets done. But just as if electricians try to do the work of ironworkers, there's no light. And if plumbers try to do the work of painters, there's no water. If the one level of government neglects its responsibilities to do the work of another, some task is left undone. Today, this is important because winter is coming and we know with relative certainty that this winter several homeless people will freeze to death in our alleys and under our bridges, and other homeless men and women, and probably even a few children will be raped and beaten and murdered along our rivers. But of course, out of sight, out of mind in our system of government, keeping the homeless safe is the responsibility of city government. This issue, then, is not a choice between people and potholes. It is a choice between the academic success of some people and the life of others. Now, this may be a choice between nice, young, talented people who would would be politically popular to serve and dirty, often mentally ill people who many in the community would rather just disappear. But it is also a choice between you doing your job and not doing your job. Moreover, you can't escape this choice by simply asserting that if the homeless had been provided with an education, they would be less likely to be homeless. The causes of homelessness in our society are much deeper and more complex than education. Our only hope at this point is to provide them with a safe living, space, food, physical and mental health care and job training. Similarly, you can't escape responsibility by saying you're simply promoting debate and giving citizens the choice. That begs the question of why you don't submit a ballot issue to the voters to raise taxes in order to provide adequate housing and mental health care to the homeless. But of course, that wouldn't be nearly as politically popular and might require some real advocacy on your part. So I suspect you will pass this and go home and bask in the glow of the fact that you have contributed to the future of young Americans, and you will feel really, really good about yourself. So go and do that. Just try not to think about this decision. The next time you read about a homeless person being raped or beaten or murdered or freezing to death under one of our bridges or in one of our alleys.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Texa. Next, Barbara Grogan.
Speaker 8: Thank you, President Herndon and members of city council.
Speaker 1: I'm Barbara Grogan, a resident.
Speaker 8: Of denver for 46 years. And I stand before you as a mother who raised her children here and now is a grandmother who's watching my daughter raise her children here. And I could talk to you all night about how important this is for our students and our children. For many of our children.
Speaker 11: It will be their only way out of poverty. But tonight, I want to speak to.
Speaker 8: You as the founder of Western Industrial Contractors and their CEO for 23 years, as the past chairman of the Denver Chamber of Commerce, as past chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Denver, and as the past director of three New York Stock Exchange companies. I understand what it takes to grow a successful company, and I understand what it takes to sustain a vibrant economy. It takes a well-trained, highly educated workforce. It is the key strategic advantage. It's predicted that in 2024 and a half short years from now, 74% of our jobs, three out of four, will require certification, associate's degree or a college degree. And we are far from being able to provide those workers now. Our proposed ballot initiative will provide the citizens of Denver with an enormous and direct return on their investment. We will have the workforce to grow our businesses and attract new ones. We will have additional lifelong taxpayers to support our city. They say that the difference between a college educated and a high school educated person is $1,000,000 in their lifelong earnings. And cost avoidance. We will avoid the extensive and likely lifelong cost of social support and incarceration that follows so many who are unable to find work because of their lack of education. Some people have asked the question, Is this appropriate thing for the citizens of Denver to support? My answer is only if they want a vibrant and viable future for our city. When the railroads passed by Denver 100 years ago and instead went to Cheyenne, the citizens of Denver built a spur to Cheyenne.
Speaker 11: Our city once owned a ski area.
Speaker 8: I'm here to tell you it was a great investment. I was on the board of Winter Park Trustees when.
Speaker 11: We sold it.
Speaker 8: 20 years ago, our citizens voted to build a spectacular new airport. When so many were telling us it was a foolish boondoggle that was going to bankrupt our city.
Speaker 11: We are the envy of so.
Speaker 8: Many cities with our bold, scientific and cultural facilities district. And last year, our citizens voted to continue to fund our very progressive Denver preschool program that is also the envy of many cities around the country. I trust the citizens of Denver to do the right thing and invest in our students, our economy and our future. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next is Irma Zamora.
Speaker 8: My name is Irma Zamora, Denver resident for more than 70 years. Today, I would like to spend my time speaking on details in the proposed scholarship measure that, in my opinion, have been either glossed over or ignored. One Funding for higher education is a state federal function, so there are reasons other cities and towns don't consider it . The taxpayers already pay the state and federal governments to oversee and carry out this function. Denver residents will be asked to pay more for the same activity. If this measure passes, what precedent does it set for Denver to duplicate other state funded activities? An idea to do something new is not a valid reason to increase taxes to the mayor and Council. Tell us that the results of the scholarship fund will better prepare young adults under the age of 25 for the jobs of tomorrow. Yet nowhere in this proposal has found a work component working part time when not in class. A work component would introduce or strengthen the students work ethic and provide the opportunity to learn and earn at the same time, as well as gain entry level work experience, thereby giving the student an advantage at the time of graduation and job application. I grew up in an inner city. High school in northwest Denver is an excellent example to validate that students who learn and earn are better prepared. Three Denver residents might be more amenable to this measure if all college bound young adults could.
Speaker 6: Access the.
Speaker 8: Fund. Everyone pays, so everyone should enjoy the benefit. For the discussions on this.
Speaker 6: Measure have included.
Speaker 8: Conversations regarding the payment of student loans in default, since the measure will not be voted upon until November of this year.
Speaker 11: There is no.
Speaker 8: Authority to pay any educationally related expenses made and or dated prior to the enabling legislation. And what are we? What are we really teaching young adults about personal responsibility? Five. The cap for funding is proposed at 4000 per year, but there is nothing in the bill that speaks to the number of years. Is it a maximum of four years, five years or as many years until the student reaches the ages of 25? Is the funding also available to both part time and full time students? Six. The maintenance of a mate of a minimum grade point average should be required. If not, the student may receive a piece of paper to hang on the wall. But he most likely did not attain the knowledge, skills or abilities to get, to get or keep a job. If that is really the goal. 2.0 is a c average.
Speaker 6: Is that expecting too much?
Speaker 8: Seven. There are no expected accountability standards pertaining to the program administrators, the city, the recipients, or the universities and colleges in this proposal. This funding will essentially be a taxpayer gift and summary and in my view, a taxi driver residence. A new tax for the same.
Speaker 6: Function is not good governance.
Speaker 8: Be asking Denver residents to fund a program that has no accountability standards, no goals or objectives, no time limits or no program requirements.
Speaker 6: Is not good governance, nor is it good stewardship.
Speaker 0: Miss Summer more. I apologize you your 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Steven Jordan. And as Dr. Jordan comes up, I'm going to call up the next five speakers Eli Roldan, Tay Anderson, Michelle Koyama, Diamond Rival and Brenda Lucero. So you five can make your way up. And Dr. Jordan, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I'm Steven Jordan, president of the Metropolitan State University of Denver, located at 890 Area Parkway. Council President Herndon and members of the Council. Thank you for your leadership on behalf of our city. I'm joined here this evening as well by Dr. Everett Freeman, the president of the Community College of Denver, and Dr. Linda Bowman of the former president of the Community College of Aurora Metropolitan State. University of Denver is celebrating our 50th anniversary in Denver this year. And since 1965, we have graduated over 80,000 students. And of those, 75,000 reside in the metro Denver area, and 27,000 have a Denver zip code. Our current 21,000 student body, 12,000 of those students live and reside in the city and county of Denver. MSU Denver is also a partner with Denver's biggest employment center, the heart of downtown Denver. We work with companies and organizations headquartered in downtown to provide an educated workforce based on industry's needs. And they include, among others, Wells Fargo, Sage Hospitality, HDR Engineering, IAMA Financial Group, Denver Public Schools and Denver Health just to name a few. As an urban university, we see ourselves as a resource that develops talent and skill, largely a Denver resonance, and brings them into the Denver workforce. It was my very special privilege to serve as a co-chair with Happy Haines and Barbara Grogan on the Denver Promoting Access to Higher Education Task Force. But the financial challenges that face today's college students are serious. Last year, we contracted with the Hanover Research Group to conduct a survey of students who had left in one of the three previous semesters. 1300 students responded. We wanted to find out why they left the university, and a whopping 43% of the respondents reported that they left college not for academic reasons, but because of financial pressures. Simply put, they did not have enough money to attend MSU. Denver. Colorado's most affordable four year university. A high school education is not enough anymore to reach the middle class or to catch the wave of Denver strong economy. A technical certificate, an associate's degree or a college degree are needed to open the doors. According to the United States Census Bureau, individuals who achieve the following degree levels earn median annual salaries, PhDs in excess of 100,000. Masters in excess of 63,000 bachelors. 55,700 associates. 42,000. And a high school diploma. 32,500. So on average, a bachelor's degree, a hold holder earns over 2.3 million over their lifetime. These financial challenges of accessing college and completing college are a problem. And it is a problem that affects the city, its economy and the quality of the life of our people. This proposal will help to set a new national model that focuses not just on access and affordability, but on the support services it takes for our students to complete their degree.
Speaker 0: Dr. George, I apologize. Ukrainian does.
Speaker 12: That. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next is Tay. Now. Exactly the name. Jesus. Can you go to the next name? It just went off the script. Eli rolled. Okay. There you go. Eli. Roland, go ahead.
Speaker 7: Hello, everyone. I am Ellie. I come from Burnham neighborhood. I'm a senior at West Leadership Academy. I'm also a DPS Student Board of Education. I come from a household where both parents only have an elementary school education, which means that college to my family has been a thought until I learned about college with the money, with the amount of money my parents make every year, I can't depend on them to pay for my college. I'll probably be in my sixties and still paying off my student loans. Who want that? Not me. To be honest with everyone. I have second guessed if I should even go to college type. College tuition keeps increasing every year. I fear of being one of those students who will be financially pressured, meaning I will still be in debt with no diploma. Even if I continue with college until I get my diploma, when graduation, I'll be in so much debt, so much that it would be hard for me to live in Denver with the College Opportunity. Film policy helps that I can pay for my college and we'll second guess if I should even go to college. This opportunity will help me and my family by giving me a chance to change my family pathways. Calling me going to college can actually impact my younger brother and my future children. College Opportunity Fund will help me pursue my dream of becoming a nurse. I'll probably work my way up to become a pediatrician. I plan to attend either University of Colorado Hospital in which I have visited earlier this week, or New York University, in which I have strong application thanks to my teachers. That's all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next is Terry Anderson. Good morning. City Council President Herndon and.
Speaker 9: The rest of city council. My name is Tony Anderson. I'm a rising senior, Emmanuel High School. Right now. I hold the position as.
Speaker 0: The student principal and I also serve as the Student Board of Education representative for this school. I am also the sitting Youth City Council President for our city right now. The DPS tax proposal affects me. It affects me because.
Speaker 9: I don't know if I'm going to be able to pay off college. I want to be.
Speaker 0: The next mayor of Denver. I want to be the next governor of Colorado, and I want to be the next president of this country. But I don't know if I'm going to be able to fulfill those dreams without.
Speaker 9: Me being able to pay for college. My I do not have the GPA to go off because.
Speaker 0: I messed up my freshman year. I'm not the perfect student. I messed up and I've made mistakes.
Speaker 9: But I'm overcoming all of my mistakes. When I'm asking what I am saying right now is that. I need this from you guys. I need you. We as a city need your vote because it's.
Speaker 0: Students like me that may have started off on the wrong path, but that can.
Speaker 9: Always turn into a success. The deed, this type of funding for them.
Speaker 0: It is with your vote that change starts. And so that I so.
Speaker 9: I really ask is that you as a city council think how many and how many students you're going to impact and what the future holds for our city and county. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Michelle Caggiano.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Michelle Kwame, and I am the very proud principal of Skinner Middle School in the Denver Public Schools. I am here this evening representing myself. I am a product of DPS. In fact, I grew up just down the street in the Baker neighborhood before it was trendy. I grew up with a single parent and was also raised by my grandparents. I am a Latina with Japanese with a Japanese surname and recognize that my skin color and last name have afforded me opportunities that my classmates growing up in Denver did not necessarily have. I attended CU Boulder and received my first year of college on scholarships. The shock value of student debt in my last three and a half years of school was daunting. And luckily, through teaching and being part of AmeriCorps, through Teach for America, I was able to pay back all of my student loans through service. There are many students, however, who don't have the opportunities that I have benefited from. My story is not the norm. Many of my peers from elementary and middle school live lives different from mine and are facing challenges that I did not encounter. As a middle school principal in northwest Denver, my staff and I instill on a daily basis the importance of education and stress, college and career readiness. For many of my students, we are already working to break the barrier and the belief that college is not financially possible. When they see their older siblings dropping out of college due to the crushing financial burden, they are discouraged. Middle school students should be focused on setting goals and not worried about how they will pay for their education. But the current reality is hard to ignore. After all, many of those older siblings were in their shoes a few short years ago, striving to perform at a high level and aspiring to graduate from college. Instituting a dedicated funding stream for college affordability could give those students a better shot at making that admirable dream a new reality. This group has the power to institute a system that will begin to close the opportunity gap for students whose college prospects are limited due to their background. Providing students this chance to fulfill their educational potential potential benefits not only those individuals and their families, but society as a whole. We must prepare our citizens for the jobs of the future without forcing them to endure a financial burden that impacts their livelihood. We tell our students every day to strive towards college. In fact, at Skinner, we gave a T-shirt out to every student last year that said College Bound on the back. And yet, students who walked across the stage at eighth grade continuation a few short years, a few short years ago, hard workers with every aspiration of going to college, who also graduated at the top of their class in high school, are not yet in college. Kevin is working construction with his dad. A rally is serving pizza. Alex is bagging groceries at Sprouts, all intended to go to college but found the price tag out of reach. It will take a long time to work at working those jobs to save the money necessary to fund college education. The opportunity of college is not what we promised them when they were in school.
Speaker 0: This going on here. 3 minutes is up next. Thank you. Next, we are diamond diamond rival.
Speaker 8: Thank you, counsel, for the opportunity to speak today.
Speaker 6: My name is Diamond Rebel.
Speaker 8: I grew up in southwest Denver and graduated from John F Kennedy High School in 2009. I am here today to tell you about my college story. I attended the University of Colorado at Boulder after graduating high school, and I received a Fulbright scholarship. Graduating in 2013 with my bachelor's in Integrative Physiology. Attending college didn't just make an impact on my life. It completely changed it. Not only did college allow me to receive an education, it allowed me to grow as a person. I was able to attend a major university, have my first roommate travel and overall gain important life experiences. Receiving my degree led me to my first job as a research program coordinator at a local Denver hospital.
Speaker 6: Has laid the foundation.
Speaker 8: For a path to a master's degree and ultimately to my dream career. If it wasn't for the Denver Scholarship Foundation, I wouldn't be standing here today with these experiences and accomplishments under my belt. Nor would I have attended college as a first generation college student. Like many of my peers, my parents had never seen a faster they had never seen a college application or knew how to write an entrance essay. They had no idea how to pay for college. With the help of DCF in their future center. These foreign processes were made familiar. College and money to pay for college was no longer an unobtainable idea. It was 100% possible. The Denver Scholarship Foundation not only provided resources for going to college, they provided a mentorship and support throughout the entire college experience. Up until I walked across the stage to receive my diploma, Dsf played a vital role in my life and in the lives of other students like me. I couldn't thank them enough for giving me the opportunity to succeed. So please vote tonight to refer this to the Denver ballot or I'm sorry to the November ballot, and hopes that more students like myself can.
Speaker 6: Have the opportunity to succeed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Brenda Lucero. And as Mrs. Cicero comes up, the final three speakers are Juliette Quinonez, Isiah Ramirez and Eddie Cohen. So you three can make your way up to the front pew. And Mrs. Sara, you can go ahead and begin your remarks.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Good evening, City Council. My name is Brenda Lucero. I live in Westwood, neighborhood of Denver, Colorado, and graduated from John F Kennedy High School. Thank you for holding a public hearing about this important topic. Today I am coming to you as a proud Denver native who attended Denver public schools in my elementary and secondary years. I had limited financial resources growing up, was eligible for free lunch, and worked very hard to be an outstanding student so I can go to college and pursue a career that allowed me to be an effective contributor.
Speaker 6: To our beautiful.
Speaker 10: Community, as well as one that allowed me to improve the quality of life for my family. My story, upbringing and ambitions are similar to many students across the.
Speaker 6: District.
Speaker 10: Who desire to obtain post-secondary education. I am a University of Denver alum and grateful to be able to say that I graduated debt free thanks to the financial support, a combination of scholarships and other support services that I received as a high school student and college undergraduate. My success as a young adult and young professional is highly attributed to the resources that are made available to me, both through scholarships and dedicated time spent with counselors, teachers, mentors and community leaders that form my support network. As a senior in high school, I applied to about 150 scholarships. Out of the 150 I was awarded eight, one of which was the Latin American Educational Foundation. This equipped me with the resources that were crucial in shaping a positive trajectory that will infinitely influence my personal and professional life. Without the supports, I would have been faced with a different path. I am in support of the Denver College Affordability Fund initiative because of the great impact that this initiative can have on our youth and on the future of our city. There are thousands of students who are highly qualified, competitive candidates, students just like me, who are declined the financial support that they deserve in order to attend college simply because of the funds are not available or the support programs are not currently able to meet the needs of the growing population. Please vote yes tonight on sending this bill to Denver voters so that we can all have a say on this important priority. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Juliette Quinonez.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Juliet Quinonez, and I am a product of Denver public schools. I went to Brown Elementary and Valdez and also to Skinner Middle School, and I graduated from North High School in 2004. And I am here on behalf of the Latin American Educational Foundation and myself. First, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on this very important topic that will impact our youth and our future. I am the oldest of four, and I am the first to graduate from my family. I grew up in a household where education was valued, and even though neither my parents graduated high school, going to college was expected of us. And although my parents had no idea what the admissions process was like, I was very blessed and surrounded by so many community members who helped me navigate the higher education system. I found two amazing mentors, Ricardo and Pam Martinez, who helped me throughout the journey of going to college. They helped me understand financial aid, scholarship applications, proofread my essays, took me on college tours and even took me shopping for clothes so that I'd be ready for an admission interview. With their help and that of the Latin-American Educational Foundation, I was able to secure enough private scholarships so that I can graduate from the University of Denver , where I received my B.A. in sociology and political science since 2008. My parents both worked two jobs and could barely afford to pay the rent and keep food on the table. Without this assistance, all private school and all other private scholarships, I would have never been able to afford college, graduate and be who I am now. We all know that the average tuition in Colorado has increased by 50%, which is putting college out of reach for many Denver residents and students. My siblings one who is studying mechanical engineering at SIU Denver, my younger brother who's studying architecture at Metro State University, and my sister who's getting her political science, also Metro State are struggling to find financial aid and scholarships to graduate. All three of them currently work part time jobs of an average of 30 hours a week to help pay their way through college. My siblings, like so many other high school students I work with, have the grit and determination to earn a degree. This investment in college access and completion will help Denver students close that gap so that they can access education at their high school and complete their degrees. My college degree has opened so many opportunities so that I can give back to my community and be able to provide a better future to my six year old son, Ivan , who today started his first grade at Denver Center for International Studies. With that in mind, I urge you to please vote yes tonight to refer this to the ballots that all Denver voters may consider this very important proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I Ramirez.
Speaker 9: Either. Before I speak, I'd just like to thank the City Council for giving me this opportunity to talk today. So as I mentioned, my name is Lisa Ramirez. I am also a product of DPS. I attended Chinook Elementary Merrill Middle School and graduated from Abraham Lincoln High School in 2011. To tell a little bit back about myself, I'm a I'm a son of Mexican immigrants, the oldest of three males, and the first to graduate from a from a public from a private university. From the University of Denver. As I mentioned before, my parents are immigrants, so they only have a high school education. They don't know the process of filling out a FAFSA. So an out of college application or everything else that entitles the process of applying to a college. With this in mind, I did not know where what I wanted to do once I graduated high school. Until I came to the future center, which was run by the Denver Scholarship Foundation. If it wasn't for their help and the help specifically of Cindy Castillo, I would have known that I wanted to attend the University of Denver . Of course, the University of Denver is a private institution which has.
Speaker 12: A higher price tag.
Speaker 9: And for that reason. They were able to provide me scholarships, but I wasn't able to pay. You know, the entire tuition just because I did not earn a full time, a full scholarship. But thanks to the two scholarships like the Denver Scholarship Foundation and the Latin American Foundation, Latin American Education Foundation, I was able to pay for most of my college. However, I did graduate with some loans. But I'm proud to be a graduate of the University of Denver. As I mentioned, I am the oldest of three males. My second youngest brother is attending the University of Denver, where he is currently a sophomore. And my youngest brother is at East High School. A college degree has meant the world to my family. It's provided an opportunity to me to follow my passion.
Speaker 12: To follow a career.
Speaker 9: Which I am interested in. I currently work at a technology startup called Pizza Investor. It is. It's been an awesome day because I was offered a full time salary and I am the first person in my family to get offered a full time salary. As you can see, it has changed my future thanks to the assistance that I received from ESF and ESF. I have a clear future as to what I want to do in my life and in my career, and I'm forever grateful for that. So I just urge you to please vote tonight on this ballot so that all Denver voters may consider this important proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Eddie Cohen.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, members of council, I am the son of two high school dropouts, and despite having several degrees in credentials, I have over $100,000 in student loan debt. My name is Eddie Cohen. I'm a first generation college graduate. I live in Aurora and I work in Denver. I serve as the executive director of College Track Colorado, where a program that supports underserved students for ten years from the end of eighth grade through college completion, as well as provides scholarship support. We serve about 150 high school students and college students from Aurora, and we're expanding into southwest Denver at the end of the school year. Our program provides, I want to emphasize, high touch and ongoing support for underserved students, an often overlooked and critical element to college success. We have the capacity to only serve 300 high school students and a full site at a time. With the support of this measure. We have the opportunity to help more students matriculate to and through college. A student in our program is three times more likely to attain a degree than their peers. We all know the numbers and we've heard compelling testimonies here tonight. 50% of adults in Denver actually has an associate degree or higher. Yet we have one of the highest equity gaps between whites and nonwhites in the nation. Additionally, the rising costs of tuition make it nearly impossible for low income students to afford college, even with sizable loans or creative legislative measures like freezing tuitions or freezing it at 6% growth rate per year. I can speak from experience when I say these programs provide critical financial and success. I worked three jobs when I was in college. What student loans? And I was a teen parent. That was in the late 1990s. If we took that same amount of income that I made, then I couldn't pay for a fourth of college, not a fourth. College track is excited to work in Denver because of the history of this city. An innovation. How we experience growth, the things that we do. Right. We hope that the city council will join college struck Colorado in support of this measure and the thousands of students that it will impact. It is easy to find reasons not to do something. Instead, look for reasons to do something. Give our students a chance at success. Give them a chance at a degree. Just like members of this council. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Council that concludes our speakers is now time for questions. A member of council and I'll wait. Councilman Flynn, you're.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Could I ask HL Ramirez, who was just up here? Hi. Hi. Hi. Congratulations, by the way. You said that you had scholarship assistance from both the Latin American Education Foundation and the Denver Scholarship Foundation.
Speaker 9: That's correct.
Speaker 5: I just want to make sure that I heard it correctly.
Speaker 12: Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Can I ask Dr. Jordan question? Hi.
Speaker 12: How are you this evening?
Speaker 5: Oh, I'm hanging in. How are you?
Speaker 12: I'm doing terrific.
Speaker 5: Can you tell me if you can? If you're prepared. What is the average cost of a full time for a full time student at Metropolitan State University in this current academic year.
Speaker 12: Including living expenses, housing, just tuition and fees?
Speaker 5: Let's just talk tuition and fees.
Speaker 12: 50 $800, 50 $800.
Speaker 5: And do you know I don't know if you were prepared for this, but do you know what it was ten years ago?
Speaker 12: Hmm. I don't know, because I would love to have that. I would. I would. Well, I. I wouldn't want to speculate.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. We've had enough speculating on other issues in this room in the past. There is also president of Community College of Denver is here as well. I'm sorry.
Speaker 12: That's correct. Dr. Freeman and Dr. Freeman is in the audience. Okay.
Speaker 5: Could I ask him to come up?
Speaker 12: Ever.
Speaker 5: Hi. I had the same question. Do you know what the average full time cost for tuition and fees is today at CD and what it might have been in 2005?
Speaker 12: Can you come up to the podium? Can you come up to the podium?
Speaker 5: I can't hear him.
Speaker 10: He sings.
Speaker 12: Okay. All right. Okay.
Speaker 5: Is there anyone here from the Denver Scholarship Foundation?
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 5: Can you come up? Sir. Could you introduce.
Speaker 12: Yourself?
Speaker 14: Sure. Name Easley, executive director of Difference Scholarship Foundation.
Speaker 5: And how are you doing?
Speaker 9: I'm doing well.
Speaker 14: Counselor.
Speaker 5: Can you tell me how many students, how many individuals you are assisting this year with the Denver Scholarship Foundation who are from who are residents of the city and county of Denver?
Speaker 14: We assessed roughly 1700 to 2000 Denver public school graduates each year. I would speculate because I don't know exactly that over 90% of those are residents, the city and county of Denver. Mm hmm.
Speaker 5: Okay. 1700 or 2000. That's pretty consistent over the years.
Speaker 14: Yes.
Speaker 5: Okay. And what is the average if you know, what is the average amount of assistance that each of those individuals receives?
Speaker 14: The median scholarship for four year college is 20 $800.
Speaker 12: 20 $800. Okay.
Speaker 5: Wow. Okay. And is there someone here from the Latin American Education Foundation? Thank you, sir. Could you come up?
Speaker 1: And good evening. Hi.
Speaker 9: I'm Jim Chavez, executive director of the Latin American Education Foundation.
Speaker 5: Thank you, sir. We met at a committee meeting. Thank you very much for coming tonight. I have the same questions. How how many students this year from Denver, from city and county of Denver are you assisting this year?
Speaker 1: And two different two different answers of our.
Speaker 9: Scholarship recipients that we you know, we help out 100 and 2030 year, 55% of them. So 55%. Those numbers are from the Denver City County of Denver scholarship recipients. We help hundreds and hundreds of students every year and their families helping them through and understanding and navigating that college going process. Now, I tell you, it's about the same. Over 50% of those students and families are Denver residents.
Speaker 5: Okay, I missed the whole number. What was the whole number?
Speaker 9: Scholarship recipients. Where you are. Scholarships, 920 hundred dollars a year. Okay. Over half of those are Denver. Denver residents.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So 60 to 70, 60 or 65. And do you know what the average or I guess average or median, if either one would would be. Okay.
Speaker 9: Of scholarship.
Speaker 5: Amount? Yes.
Speaker 9: So we have a tiered approach. So that matches the cost of attendance for our students that are attending a four year research institution. Our annual scholarship is from us is a $2,000 award, 1500 dollars for those students attending one of the state college levels, Metropolitan State University, Mesa, Western Adams State. And we have a smaller scholarship of $500 for students attending the community college system. Excellent.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Mr. President. I don't quite know who to address this to, so maybe I'll address it to you as the sponsor of the bill. Do you know how many other scholarship organizations are involved in who could be involved in this program?
Speaker 0: The co-chairs for that task force. I'll have that opportunity to ask.
Speaker 5: Miss Grogan or Ms.. Haynes.
Speaker 0: Or how many.
Speaker 5: How many other how many other organizations, scholarship organizations might participate other than DFS and Elif?
Speaker 11: I'm thank you, Councilman Flynn. I believe it that we identified somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to 15 organizations. So these organizations that we have had a chance to talk to about their services, there could be others. But these are the most prominent organizations.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Do we know how much? Well, I guess I could add up if I did multiplication. But how much between L, F and DFS did they award then in 2015? I think I have a point. I promise.
Speaker 0: So, councilman, is that you want to have them.
Speaker 5: I just wanna make sure my math is okay. If DFES had about 2000 students and their average awards to 800 and if L.F. had 120 and half of them live in Denver and and the average award was 2000. If I did that math, that would be an accurate amount of that aggregate. We agree on that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 14: Sorry, I'd be happy to follow up specifically in how many students we brought in each specific year, but since we started, our first cohort was 27 and we've awarded 4600 students that have graduated from Denver Public Schools. So the average, the mean average is over 2000. Okay. The median is 2800.
Speaker 5: Tis 2018. But you said you do. You have about 1700 to 2000 individuals every year.
Speaker 14: For the last two years, it's been roughly between. Somewhere between 1518 hundred.
Speaker 5: And you started in 2007, did you say?
Speaker 14: Yeah. First cohort of pilot students, which was from three high schools, were 27.
Speaker 5: Okay. And 4700 individuals have benefited.
Speaker 14: 46 of that ten students have received 46. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Okay. You don't know how many of those were from Denver.
Speaker 14: I the all of my Denver public school graduates.
Speaker 5: All are Denver public. Most of them. Most.
Speaker 12: About 90%. Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr.. And that's all I have for now.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to ask our city attorney a question. Dan, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. We had a question that came up last Monday when this was on first reading, and the question was about the cap. He said There's a cap in the first year and the question is, can that cap change in subsequent years? And what's the the process for it to change if the answer is yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. And I'm Dan Slattery in the Denver City Attorney's Office. So two things. And I was anticipating maybe that or a similar question. The cap is an annual cap. And when when when you read through both the organization reimbursement and the debt relief programs, you see that it's an annual application process and is intended to apply annually per student and it can change the corp, the the nonprofit corporation that would be established if this were passed. Would have the ability that board would have the ability to increase the cap.
Speaker 8: And there's no there's no limit on what how high that.
Speaker 4: It's limited by the consumer price index increases in the metro area.
Speaker 8: So if a student has applied to multiple organizations and gets funding, if it's. These dollars if they're being awarded these dollars. How how is it being coordinated so that it's known that a student is only getting 4000 or are they allowed that amount per organization?
Speaker 4: The annual cap is.
Speaker 8: Per student.
Speaker 4: Is per student per year, and also the cap can't be aggregated. So if you're being supported through an organization and that organization is being reimbursed the following year and you also as a student are applying for debt relief, then you can only get a total of $4,000.
Speaker 8: Okay. And that coordination is supposed to be happening by this governance body.
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 8: We'll be overseeing how these dollars are being.
Speaker 4: It's a not it will be a separate nonprofit corporation with this the seven member board, which which will have a lot of responsibility and a lot of administrative details like that to oversee and work out.
Speaker 8: Okay. Those are the only questions I have right now. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. And Mr. Slattery. A couple more questions. I'll I'll ask them both because they're related. As I understand it, the they'll be a nonprofit form to distribute whatever funds might be raised. And the scholarship money for a particular student goes to the scholarship provider based on satisfactory progress in the student's education. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes, that's one of the eligibility criteria is you have to be making satisfactory academic progress.
Speaker 12: How is that progress measured? And then the question that was asked, I believe, by Ms.. Mora as to how many years can a student continue to draw from the program if other qualifications are met?
Speaker 4: Well, the limit. Let me see how many. The limit on the only limit is an age limit. So you're a Denver resident. You you your final year of school. You you can't hit 25. So that's the. And then the entire program is ten years. Can you repeat the first part of your question, though, Councilman?
Speaker 12: Yeah, the first question was, how do you measure progress?
Speaker 4: Oh, it's. And that is as as determined as is established by the higher ed institution. So under the ordinance, it's just it's the school.
Speaker 12: That the school sets that the ordinance doesn't have. Right.
Speaker 4: Guidelines that the ordinance simply requires satisfactory academic progress as determined by the school.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you. And one other question, Fran, and that's all for you, Mr. Slattery. Thank you for any of the educators that might be here, Mr. Jordan, or someone else. There have been concerns. I think Miss Haynes mentioned earlier concerns about the high cost of tuition throughout the educational complex. And I'm wondering if you care to address your feelings as to whether Colorado institutions are holding the line sufficiently or have more work to be done? Sure. Thank you, Councilman. I'd be please respond to that. I think clearly we all understand where our heart station system in Colorado is. We understand we're ranked 47th in the country and that that has put particularly difficult pressure on tuition. However, I think we need to put it in context. I mentioned that our tuition today is and fees, mandatory fees are 50 $800 a year. That puts us in the lowest quartile in the United States. We currently have the lowest tuition of any four year institution in the United States with 15,000 or more students. And I think throughout the system, whether you're talking about the community colleges, whether you are talking about the four year regional comprehensive, you're talking about the research universities , their in-state tuition relative to their comparison institutions in other states is more affordable. We also, by every measure right now, in terms of numbers of graduates per $100,000 expended, we are number one in the country in efficiency on the number of graduates per $100,000 of tuition and fees that are spent on education. Clearly. Clearly, we are all very attentive to that question. The legislature has asked the Department of Higher Education to do a to provide it with a recommendation on what tuition policy should be out into the future. And I think every one of us understands that we are competing in a very free market. And so we run the risk in raising tuition rates that we will lose students to other institutions, both in-state and out-of-state. I take great pride in the fact that my institution has more students of color than any other institution in the state of Colorado. And we believe that because of the climate we provide and the and the tuition rates that that we set for our institutions, we take great pride that we have over a thousand veterans at our university. And we think that is also because of the affordability of coming to our university. We take great pride that of the total 21,000 students, 60% of those students are either low income, first generation or students of color. We do think we do that because we provide an affordable price. Has our tuition increased? Absolutely, it has. But when you are faced with a situation where I currently receive less than $3,000 per year from the state of Colorado and the only other place that is left to assure a quality educational experience is to pay for tuition. So even at 3000, less than 3000 plus 50 $800 from the student we are still at in terms of total general fund and tuition per student, the lowest in the United States of any institution with 15,000 or more students. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa, you're up.
Speaker 9: I'd like to call Mr. Easley back up. Sorry. So thank you for having a bunch of information on your website actually.
Speaker 14: That happy to.
Speaker 9: See you. I think it's a little bit dated because it states that there are 4500 students in the in that are being served, but it also states that only 800 have graduated. Is that true?
Speaker 14: So our numbers of this, we've since 2007 provided scholarships to 4600. That's $2,025 million that we've invested as an organization. We've leveraged another 50 million inches financial aid for those students. Three out of four of every student that's ever received our scholarship either is still persisting towards a Certificate Associates, a four year college degree, or they have graduated. We have over a thousand college graduates to date, sir. And just for clarification, the students that we serve on an annual basis includes about 600 new students and the rest are returning. So our scholarship is available to students for up to four years.
Speaker 9: Because I'm trying to. So those are, again, slightly larger. So bear with me. The numbers I was using was the 800 that was stated, and that was 18%. What you just said is closer to 20% sort of outcome. And so that means that we're that 60 I mean, that 80% of the students that are receiving support don't necessarily ever complete the degree.
Speaker 14: Now, that's that's not entirely true. This that's why I use the term they're either persisting or they've completed. We're a nine year old organization. So we have several students who are still trying to complete a college degree. And as long as we can find them on the rolls of trying, we count them as a success. So the numbers I have given you are persistence completion numbers, which we hold together our completion numbers, as I said, 4600 students. We've had over 1000, slightly over 1000 students completed college degree.
Speaker 9: So just to help me out, because I'm looking at the number of four year cycles. Did you? I am assuming you started out serving a smaller population.
Speaker 14: We did.
Speaker 9: And we said, do you have any sense about what year one was versus now the 1700 to 2000?
Speaker 14: So we started off as a pilot organization. And I'll be honest with you, Councilman, we weren't as sophisticated then as we are now. So if you look at our first three or four years before we had the success agreements with 32 colleges across the state, our persistence completion rate wasn't as strong as if you look at from two 2010 forward as we grew in partnerships both with colleges and with our fellow organizations that do this kind of work. And so the numbers that I'm giving you are based on that you are a very young organization still trying. So there are several students who are still trying to complete their college degree.
Speaker 9: Because the reason why I'm asking is the $25 million that has been used so far, and this is, again, based on the 800 number. So let's lower it. It was it was $31,250 per graduate. Of the 25 million. So you're you're operating slightly more efficiently than that, it sounds like. But that's that's a lot of money for four years.
Speaker 14: You know, if you look at the count without if you look at the cost of one year of keeping a person in prison at 30,000, if you look at the cost at four years of our scholarship, it's more than roughly about two and a half times of what we spend as an organization in four years relative to what we spent in one year to keep a person in prison or jail. And I'm not trying to suggest that if you don't go to college, you go to jail. If you look at the correlation of educational attainment and whether or not a person ends up in prison, it's it's obvious to obvious that there's a benefit of going to college. So we think that if you look at the total cost of what we do and what we leverage from our college partners and from our private partners and from our public partners, it's a pretty strong investment. In fact, for every dollar we invest in scholarship, there's a $9 and 59 cent return to the city of Denver. If those students come back and work in the city and county of Denver in terms of tax base available, we've been able to find roughly 500, slightly over 500 of our our graduates so far. And we're working to find more. But the ones that we've found, 99% of them live and work in the state of Colorado and 98% of them work in the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 9: So how would this added revenue source actually benefit? The concern is, is that a 20 a 20% sort of completion rate means that there's or let's just say it's better than 80%. Let's say there's only two thirds that aren't graduating. Do we lump those on the people that go to prison? You know, how does this money actually bean me actually increase, get us closer to two and to not having that sort of failure rate versus just keeping the status quo, just doing it with more students.
Speaker 14: Councilman, first of all, let me tell you how much I appreciate your question because I really do. Every day I wake up and I think about the fact that our organization has to have a return on investment. It's hard for us to get philanthropic investment if there's no difference in terms of what we're doing with with the students in whom we invest and whether or not they graduate. What I love about the initiative that is before you this evening is it ratchets up that that pressure. I mean, he's the executive director to have success. So I can tell you that, number one, he is our students have to meet satisfactory academic progress to get reimbursed . Number two, key is that we're only reimbursed up to 75% of what we spend on scholarship and support services. And we cannot be reimbursed the money we received from the city in a previous year. Why is that important? Because it's a public private partnership, and we think that being accountable to both the city as a public entity and our private investors is very important and will make us, as well as our colleagues who do this work, a lot more efficient as organizations. So to sum, it ratchets up significantly the pressure on me and my colleagues to get persistence and completion. In fact, I understand there may be an incentive included in, in the wording of this initiative for for completing. And the other thing that is really important to understand, this includes students who get certificates and associates. And when I say college degree, people don't hear that. My my colleagues in private industry have made it very clear to me that we have a real dearth in students who are going on to get the certificates that are necessary to fill our workforce need in the city of Denver.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. And then one more question for Mr. Ramirez wasn't. Sorry. Again congratulations on on your success in completing do you did you say you went to Lincoln? Yeah. Abraham Lincoln. So were you did you reside your family reside in the southwest part of town? Yes. So southwest Denver, Ruby Hill Park neighborhood, Missouri. You know that. That's okay. Are you aware that the proposed ballot initiative has a has a Pell Grant component? I mean, it is it's it's it's got a component to it that sort of that goes, what is it? I don't want it. It increases the sort of level of qualification and that the LA, the current Denver, the DFES or DSF and L.A. scholarship programs, while they're focused on needs based, they disproportionately sort of award in sort of the northeast, extreme northeast in the extreme southwest parts of the city, because that's where the real need is . And by increasing this, they actually increase the the income qualification level to 90,000 a year is a family income and that I don't if you look at the if you look at the average median income for for southwest Denver, it's nowhere near $90,000 a year. And so that this is going to not mean that this is going to increase the amount of revenue, but it's actually going to, you know. Are you aware that this is actually going to sort of increase the the the breadth of who's available to qualify for those funds? So you're saying increase who's available to receive those funds. Yeah. The point. Yeah. Are you aware that it, it, it's, it's going to reach more families technically than the current revenue. I mean, the current sort of. Well, actually, I don't know the programs now I'm speaking out of turn because I don't know. Never mind. Scratch what I just said, Councilman. I mean, president. So that.
Speaker 0: You're going to have.
Speaker 9: Some. Yes. Right. Fine. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, is it okay if I go to council members new and can each. All right, Councilman. New Europe. Okay.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. Rose. Dr. Jordan, question for you, please. Going back to the service, the satisfactory rating of the school or the students progress. How do you view that that satisfactory progress of a student? Sure. So we we do it in the same way. I think the state of Colorado does and and has done around the country. We tend to view it as a full time student is 12 credit hours or more. And so to be making satisfactory progress towards the degree they need to complete 24 semester hours in a year, as you know, the full time load is 15 semester hours. So someone who took 15 semester hours every semester for eight semesters would complete 120 hour degree program in exactly four years. Someone who takes 12 hours will take five years. Our proposal actually does provide that we would provide funding for students up to six years again, subject to their satisfactory progress if they're going for a bachelor's degree and three years for a community college student. All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. New Councilman Kenny wrote.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to follow up on the answer to that question. Dan, is I didn't see a six year and a three year limit in the ordinance language. Should I miss them? Are those in there? Because I did have I did want to clarify because Ms.. Zamora had asked that question, and I thought, it's always important if your speakers are asking questions that we try to get them answered.
Speaker 2: I think so.
Speaker 4: We're looking at the the version that I'm looking at. Happy's version had a different language. I don't see a three in a six year. There's a 25 year age limit.
Speaker 12: Right. Okay.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Slattery. And I guess I'm happy. My question was my second question was for you, if you don't mind coming back up. I appreciate you sharing some of the process and the other funding sources that you considered. Can you share a little more about why the DPS property tax was not pursued as the source for this potential program, as an education source of funding?
Speaker 11: Yes. And my colleagues can add anything. We had quite a lengthy debate, and I think at the end of the day, the the decision was we needed to have DPS focus its attention and its resources on its primary responsibility, which is to make certain that students are college and career ready and that the that that there would be a conflict in terms of the resources and spreading them beyond that primary mission to then also put put upon them the burden of trying to see students through success in college.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you very much. No further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Kenny G. All right. We are back up to those. And as before, Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Dr. Jordan. Sorry to keep making you get up and down.
Speaker 12: That's what we're here for, sir.
Speaker 5: I'm a little confused because you were talking about the affordability of Metro State. And everything leading up to this moment has led me to believe that college is unaffordable. But you're saying you're in the lowest quartile in the nation in affordability? In fact, I think it might be true that three or more students could attend Metro State for the cost of one student to say, going to the University of Denver for a year.
Speaker 12: I haven't done the math. That's just what I would say. That's probably true.
Speaker 5: Yes. That's just.
Speaker 12: Rhetorical. Sure. So.
Speaker 5: So aren't you. You did express a concern up here that with with costs rising that you might lose some students to other institutions. But aren't you concerned that if this tax passes, that some of the students who would choose Metro State would instead go to the University of Denver because they now have the assistance or would instead go to Regis or to see you or CSU.
Speaker 12: So my my doctoral degrees in public policy. So I'm a policy wonk. So let me just tell you how I feel about this. I think there's a lot of conversation that's going on, not just in Colorado, but throughout the country, about young people making decisions about going to college, not because it's the right fit for them, but because it's the only institution they can afford to go to. I have no objections whatsoever. If a highly qualified student who has a desire and can find a program that is the right fit for them at the University of Denver, I would rather see that student end up at the University of Denver than to end up at Metropolitan State University if it wasn't where that student really desired to be. I think we want I think the most important thing for us to do is to find young people who are excited about living in our community, who want to contribute to it and give them the opportunity to attend the array of really great institutions we have in Colorado. And by the way, we do have I mean, for for all the troubles we have with financing, we have an exceptionally fine array of institutions in Colorado. And we would we should celebrate their being able have the opportunity to choose the one that's the best fit for them. Mm hmm.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So you wouldn't mind losing those students? Do you agree that when you said 50 $800 and you're in the lowest quartile and the lowest cost institution of greater than 15,000 students, that it doesn't seem that there is an affordability problem.
Speaker 12: No, I don't agree with that. That was exactly the reason. And the reason I pointed out in my testimony that when we talk with our students. That had dropped out. 43% said the reason they had dropped out was not because of academic issues, it was because they could not afford to go to college.
Speaker 5: So in the nation and regardless regarded as affordable, one of the most affordable institutions in the country. But your students don't believe that.
Speaker 12: I don't think it's saying they don't believe it. I'm saying they believe they do not have the means to pay for it. Okay.
Speaker 5: That that seems in conflict to me. But thank you. Can I ask Dan a question on. Just to clarify, the 25 year limit. Does that cut off a person when they reach their 25th birthday or their 26th?
Speaker 9: Then. They can't be.
Speaker 4: They cannot be older than 25 as of the final scheduled day of the academic year for which they're seeking.
Speaker 5: Reimbursement. So if they are 25, they can qualify. Yes. Okay. Okay. I was wondering what impact that might have.
Speaker 4: Yes. If they are 25, they still qualify.
Speaker 5: Excellent. Okay. Happy you're still back there. Not that I expected you would be leaving, but you said that in your in your testimony, you said that I believe a throw over the past. Ten years. 30,000 students have graduated from high school in Denver. DPS.
Speaker 11: Well, I think I think it was over in the next ten years, the expectation would be roughly 30,000 students.
Speaker 5: Okay from DPS or Denver residents.
Speaker 11: That live in Denver.
Speaker 5: Students who live in Denver. So potentially this could impact this could assist up to 30,000 students. Okay. Thank you. And I guess Mr. Easley. Thank you. My editor used to tell me that journalists doing math was a very dangerous thing. I'm sure that elected officials doing math is equally dangerous. But based on the earlier questions I had, it seems to me that. Between the individuals that you're assisting and. And I didn't hear from any others. I can't imagine that any group is larger than a DFS in terms of how much they assist members, students and based on your median, which was not the average. So it's fudging a little bit, but based on your median costs and the number of people you're assisted between the two organizations, I counted $4.3 million. Then that could be reimbursed to those two organizations based on the 75% limit of up to $4,000. But of course, your median was well below the $4,000. This tax is estimated in the first year, according to the to the ballot measure is estimated to raise $10.6 million a year. And then I imagine it would grow by some factor as sales two as sales tax rose, what happens? That's only 40% of the revenue that we're raising with this tax. What is intended for the rest of the 60% of this $10.6 million?
Speaker 14: Thank you for your question, Constable Flynn. Also, just for the for the record, I am I am one of your graduates. I graduated from Montebello High School and like Mr. Keen, I was also a teen parent and worked my way all the way through Ph.D.. So I'm doctor easily. I normally don't use that, but when I canvased to be on the school board, I met a family that said they had never met a black Ph.D. before. I saw on a public forum I preferred to be Dr. Easily. Thank you. That said, your question is at the heart of this policy. That's why it's not just reimbursement to organizations like L.A. for the Denver Scholarship Foundation and in College Track and I Have a Dream. It also includes debt relief and policy, as you know very well. Councilman, the last thing you want to do is ask the taxpayer for their hard earned money and then leave it on the table. And so that's that's the challenge for this city. This initiative created nonprofit to make sure that through the 39 eligible colleges throughout the state that we work with the financial aid office and that any student who could qualify for these funds, which you estimated 60% is, is aware that that they can work with the city to get up to $4,000 sent to their lenders and to their college to help them with indebtedness. It's very important that that be in there. As many of you know from the history, their scholarship foundation had had begged a similar question in the past, really focused on the Denver Scholarship Foundation. And thanks to the community leaders, we had an epiphany that this wasn't about us, this was about Denver. And so we let go and gave it to the task force that worked with the mayor's office of the. The initiative before you tonight is really about Denver students. It's not about organizations. As I said earlier, it does ratchet up the the gray hairs that I'll get trying to get success as an organization, but as a montebello graduate who thank God, both my kids I had when I was the teen parent of both college graduates as well. I understand the importance of every student finishing. So to answer your question, I think the policy has addressed the need. 10 million is not enough for mathematicians. And if you look at cost of attendance, it's a very little bit when you start talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 4000 students a year, it's going to require a lot more commitment from our 39 colleges and state commitment from organizations like DCF to ramp up our private fundraising to to match what the city is doing. But I do think it's good policy, and I think it's well thought out. And although I'd love to have seen an earlier proposal, I am happy to say this is not about Denver Scholarship Foundation. This is about the kids in Denver.
Speaker 5: Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Susman, you have a question you like to ask here. You haven't asked to have the ability to ask it.
Speaker 6: Oh, sure I do. I do have a question. Go right.
Speaker 0: Ahead.
Speaker 6: And Dr. Jordan, sorry to put you back on the spot again, but I wonder if you could come up, please. Dr. Jordan, I know we've been colleagues before, and I know what a fabulous job Metropolitan State College has done, and I thank you for your leadership. And so I'm going to apologize first if some of these questions are a little bit difficult, but I bet for you they won't be. What I'd like to focus on is the elements of this ballot proposal. In this ballot proposal, are there any requirements of reports from Metropolitan State College?
Speaker 12: There are not requirements of reports from the college. There certainly is a an obligation on our part to identify students who would be a graduate of a Denver high school who would otherwise be eligible for some form of of of assistance through this program.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Are there any in this ballot proposal? Are there any criteria which Metro must meet for student achievement in order to receive these funds? Are there is there anything in this ballot proposal that says to Metro, these are criteria you have to meet?
Speaker 12: So there are not in this proposal, but there certainly are in the new higher education funding formula that was brought about by former Speaker Farentino, which places a significant emphasis for every institution in the funding, both on retention of students and on actual graduation, and provides even additional bumps for every institution that in particular does that with a Pell Grant student. So the state, through its appropriation process, has clearly said retention and graduation rate is our priority, and we're creating a funding system that is more reliant on those goals.
Speaker 6: Thank you. That that is the state's responsibility. Are there any requirements in this ballot measure that that require you to increase your retention or completion rates? That is, are there any when when you receive tax money for tuition, do you have any requirement to this in this ballot?
Speaker 12: So increase your receiving money for tuition. The student is receiving money.
Speaker 6: Right. But when the student the money that the student spends for tuition are you have any responsibilities or criteria to report on that?
Speaker 12: Certainly not. Not to the city, but certainly to the state and to the federal government. We do.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, because I'm going to take a year out.
Speaker 8: Thank you. The string of questions has raised a few more questions. And let me start with Dr. Easley, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. Can you tell me what the average cost per student is just on the services that are provided by Denver Scholarship Foundation?
Speaker 14: Thank you for the question, Councilwoman Ortega. I'm just for clarification. The average cost of the Denver Scholarship Foundation or the average.
Speaker 8: Scholarship, the services that are provided.
Speaker 14: We spend depending on the institution. And I hedged on this because it matters if whether or not they're at a community college or Colorado College, but roughly at a community college to make it happen in terms of support services, etc., you need roughly about 1400 dollars. In some cases, we're able to get grants to do this. For example, we have a grant at the Community College of Denver where we're able to spend that roughly 1400 in addition to our scholarship on students. In some cases, we're not able to do that.
Speaker 8: So does that 1400 count towards the cap in if this legislation passes? Does it count towards the cap?
Speaker 14: From my reading of the of the policy, you cannot receive more than 4000 regardless of what you spend. And just to make another point that's really important, that means that I have to continue to get leverage, private investment. And that's one of the things that I love most about this policy, is that it does not release me or my organization from our relationship with private donors. In fact, the more private money we're able to raise and the more success wherever they have with that private money, the more city money we're able to access.
Speaker 8: So. Can you tell me then if the. Counseling is spent on students who may not end up pursuing a scholarship. For example, I know you do work in the high schools trying to assist students who are seeking various scholarship dollars as they're approaching their senior year and trying to figure out where they want to go to school . So how how does. How does that apply the money that you're spending on staff for students who may or may not end up being a college student to access a scholarship?
Speaker 14: Again, thank you for a great question. In the case of the Denver Scholarship Foundation, we would not seek reimbursement on what we do with the free college level. We have a strong partnership with Denver Public Schools. We also have several private organizations that sponsor our future centers. That would not be what we would seek. Our challenge are to first our scholarship amount. We would love to be able to fit to improve the quality of what we provide in financial aid. So that's one of the challenges and priorities for the organization, is to see if we can increase our scholarship amount so we narrow the unmet need for students on an annual basis and to increase our investment in colleges that students attend where they are really faced with both social and academic challenges, things that happen outside of the classroom that put pressure on whether or not they're able to to persist and graduate. And, you know, I understand as well as a former teen parent and from a low income single parent family, there's a lot of pressure on me as a young man to quit college and get a job so I can help my mother pay the mortgage for my siblings. So I get it. And it's very important the financial aid is necessary, but not sufficient for kids to complete. Oftentimes you need both social academic support and learn how to be an advocate for yourself, know when and where to get help. And those are all very, very important. And that's what I love about this policy, is it encourages organizations like the Denver Scholarship Foundation to pay attention to things in addition to financial aid that first generation low income students need.
Speaker 8: What I'm trying to understand is. How the counseling process works at the high school level. Mm hmm. And I'm going to ask our city attorney in a minute to help me understand if there is any percentage split on how much can go towards reimburses reimbursement versus new students that are being recruited out of at a high school . So my my next question is about how, for example, Denver Scholarship Foundation overlaps or collaborates with college in Colorado, who also does some work in high school with students who are looking to pursue higher ed.
Speaker 14: Again, great question. And I learned growing up in my Belo it's better to cooperate than compete. Although you may think I'm big enough to play for the Broncos now, I wasn't always this size. And so, yeah, I've carried that attitude into my professional career. And so we have a written agreement with 21 organizations that do similar work, including the Colorado Department of Higher Education, so that we don't stumble over each other. So what are you going to do and what are we going to do? So that was a win for you, a win for us. And most importantly, it's a win for students. So the short answer is we believe in collective impact.
Speaker 8: Okay. My next question is for Harvey Haynes. Thank you, Dr.. Easily. KP Do you have information on how much Denver Public Schools spends on college prep counseling services for high school students that are looking to pursue higher education?
Speaker 11: No, I'm sorry, Councilwoman. I couldn't quote that number to you right off the top of my head. And particularly because our counselors have multiple roles, not a college readiness and college preparation, as well as assistance with students in their high school careers. And so sometimes the you know, those lines blur.
Speaker 8: So is there like an average number of college counselors in each high school? I know the sizes of our high schools vary across the board. So can you just.
Speaker 11: It would. It would I think it would be a little misleading to try to give an average number for high school. And here's the reason. We have a student based budget process that gives us an amount of dollars to each school based on the number of students that are enrolled. Those schools decide themselves where those dollars are spent. So each high school determines how many counselors and what and how many teachers and how many intervention specialists and all of those things. So there isn't, you know, no term.
Speaker 8: And how much is spent on college prep part. Other words, they determine how much they determine based on the.
Speaker 11: Needs of the student, the students in their school. I can tell you this. Number one, because of additional assistance, both through federal funding and from state funding to add counselors, we have over the past year added counselors in all of our high schools because it is a strong need. And many of our high schools have had a, you know, a one counselor per 500 student ratio, which is very high. And and you can imagine how difficult it is to give students the appropriate support. Many of our high schools have really worked to hire additional support in counselors, in student advisors and through other means, including coordination with the futures centers. In order to provide that assistance to our students on and getting ready for college.
Speaker 8: In the future centers is a DPS.
Speaker 11: The Futures Centers is a partnership between Denver Public Schools and the Denver Scholarship Foundation. And I would point out, I think to the point the question that you were asking earlier, so the the reimbursements for support under the ordinance is not directed to the future centers that are in within DPS. They're directed to students who are enrolled in a college or a certificate program. So the so the thrust of the support services under this proposal is for students is for the support for students who are in one of those programs to help them persist.
Speaker 8: So that reimbursement is not done for students who are in high school.
Speaker 11: That's right. It's not it's not applicable to our future centers in Denver public schools.
Speaker 8: So the work that College in Colorado does works primarily in the high schools, trying to get students ready to go on to college, very similar to what Denver Scholarship Foundation does. Are they, in fact, eligible to be reimbursed for the work they do for students that are helping get into college?
Speaker 11: Again, to the extent that those services are provided to students who are enrolled in a program. So if there if college in Colorado is continuing to assist students who are enrolled in a two year community college or a four year institution or a certificate accredited certificate program, then yes, they would be eligible.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And my last two questions are for Dan Snyder, if you wouldn't mind coming back up. So let me get back to the question that I asked earlier. I'm trying to find my notes here. So let me jump to this 1/1. Can you outline the process per the language by which any new organizations could become eligible to? To work with students and take advantage of these resources to assist students.
Speaker 4: So the the requirements for an organization to benefit from funding through the city created nonprofit are on page nine of the bill. They have to be duly incorporated and in good standing under the Colorado nonprofit Corporation Act and the IRS as a tax exempt organization. They also have to have existed and operated as a college scholarship and support service entity for not less than three years. So that was a decision to ensure a track record before. Before funding, and then they have reporting requirements to remain in good standing. There are reports required to the the city created nonprofit.
Speaker 8: And I'm assuming they have to raise their own money if they're fronting the scholarship and then getting reimbursed back.
Speaker 4: Yes. Because they can only be reimbursed for private funds.
Speaker 8: And can you clarify if the language speaks to a split on what percentage goes towards reimbursement versus what percentage can go to new students? Or is that all basically too determined by the new government's body?
Speaker 4: Just. There's no split. But I'm confused on on what you're splitting between.
Speaker 8: So is there. Are we is does the language say 60% of the dollars should go.
Speaker 4: Oh I see.
Speaker 8: Student for the old enrolled into college versus you know 80% students who are already in.
Speaker 4: No there's no split like that. And nor is there a split articulated between the organization reimbursement side and the debt relief side.
Speaker 8: Okay. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank Councilman Ortega Guzman as. Do you have a clue?
Speaker 11: Excuse me. Councilman, if I can clarify one answer to the question about college in Colorado. So the organizations that are eligible to be reimbursed must be nonprofit institutions. And so college in Colorado, being a government entity would not be eligible to be reimbursed. So I wanted to be sure I clarified that.
Speaker 8: Thank you for thank you for sharing.
Speaker 0: Councilman Espinosa. Okay, if I go to Councilwoman Clark. Right. And then a chance to ask a question. Come on, Clark, you're up.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I have two quick questions. Can our attorney, Mr. Slattery, come back up? Can I just clarify that this you know, Dr. Easley had mentioned earlier that this ordinance is not about one organization. In fact, how this is written. The eligible kids would have to be residents of the city and county of Denver, correct?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 12: And there's a residency requirement built into their.
Speaker 4: 36 continuous months of rest Denver residency prior to attending.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you. And then if I could ask quick question of the honorable Miss Haynes. Earlier, my colleague asked a question about the different funding mechanisms that were looked at to fund potential. You know, for kids to go to college by leveraging if we had leveraged this or looked at this under a DPS funding model. It seems to me that that funding would have only been able to be used for Denver public school kids. But by leveraging this funding mechanism through this mechanism, this will now be eligible for all kids beyond Denver public schools. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: That is correct. Councilman.
Speaker 12: Thank you very much. Think that's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Think they can count on that? They're happy. Councilman Espinosa, you're up.
Speaker 9: All right. I would like to call the honorable happy Haines. Yeah.
Speaker 8: Oh.
Speaker 9: So I'm sorry. Every time we talk about this new stuff comes up. Otherwise, I would have asked well in advance. So you mentioned that you expected 30,000 students over the next ten years to graduate from Denver schools. What percentage in any sense about what percentage? At least based on what we know now, what percentage would go on to post-secondary education that would be eligible for. Well, you know, just in general, how many what percentage would be going to on to college or community college or something?
Speaker 11: So it's over. It's more dangerous for me to be doing the math than, uh, Councilman Flynn. But let me add, because that was over a period of years. So let me let where I'm going with let me just say that we estimate it and I'm going to ask staff to correct me if I'm wrong, if I'm if I'm wrong, that approximately 65 it's so not over the ten year period, but approximately 6500 students on on an average attend college in Denver. And that's not a.
Speaker 9: Know where I'm going with this is is if it were 10,000 over ten years as 3000 students a year at $10 million, that's 33,000 I mean, 30 $300 of eligible money. I mean, per student, that's not extrapolating it over 44 years of education. But that means that if you had 25% that went on to to school, to programs and were eligible to sort of get money, you could actually fully fund every kid that went to college for 33 I mean, 3300. Dollar scholarship. But after if you go half me now, if you expect half of those students now, you reduce that number by half. So I'm just trying to figure out and.
Speaker 11: So great question. I mean, it involves, you know, a crystal ball to some extent. And it's one of the reasons why flexibility was built into the the ordinance to enable the the nonprofit to understand the demand each year. And our hope is that particularly the new students that we're trying to reach out to will will swell those numbers. But it could mean that the average amount of of reimbursement would change over the years. It's it's hard to predict.
Speaker 9: So then of those 3000 students that are on average coming out of Denver schools, this goes back to the other question I was starting to ask. What is the maximum eligible EFC that that you guys were targeting? You had a multiplier. And I couldn't remember what that multiplier was and I'm sorry.
Speaker 11: So the maximum eligible.
Speaker 9: Expected family contribution that would still be eligible for this money.
Speaker 11: So I expected family income is entirely based on the family's income. So there's there's no way to pull a number out that represents all of those students. Right. What the what the ordinance provides is that students are eligible on a on a sliding scale scale for families up to two and a half times of Pell eligibility. So students who are lower income students on a sliding scale and this would be determined by the nonprofit would be eligible for larger amounts up to that 4000 per year.
Speaker 9: Okay. So two and a half. Two. Two and a half of the Pell eligible.
Speaker 11: So so what we're trying to do is is provide eligibility for students who are whom who may not be low income students and eligible for the higher amounts based on their income but still are are racking up debt and therefore in need of some assistance. Those students at the higher levels that two and a half times of Pell eligibility would not be eligible for as much reimbursements or support as students who are lower income.
Speaker 9: So then again, I won't extrapolate it over the 30,000 expected, but of the Denver students, the mean of the students that we would say eligible this year, what percentage of that graduating class would meet that 2.2.5 X threshold? You any sense about how many students in this year's graduating class would actually be eligible to get money through this program?
Speaker 11: Um, no, I, I don't know. I mean, you, Dr. easily could provide that only based on the number of students in Denver Scholarship Foundation. And you could extrapolate from that.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Ms.. Haines. Thank you for the question, Councilman. So if you look at DPS population of 90,000 students, two thirds of DPS students qualify for free or reduced lunch. And that is an excellent proxy for palatability. So if you look at the fact that, you know, you get two thirds of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch, and that's the largest provider of education in the city. You know, I can't speak to what we have at our private institutions or how many students are choosing to go to Jefferson County schools or other school districts adjacent to ours. But I can say if you use Denver as a proxy, there's a there's a there's there should be significant demand for this. We also did some preliminary look at at one point of what it would take for the Denver Scholarship Foundation to to serve all DPS students. And, you know, currently, we invest about 4 million a year in scholarships. That number would go up over over 9 million. Just in the small percentage of DPS kids who don't qualify for free or reduced lunch. They're more likely to go to college and they're more likely to persist.
Speaker 9: So that sort of and that would be funding at the current levels that you fund.
Speaker 14: That would be if we expanded our eligibility beyond the current level that we look at. And right now we're at one and a half times Pell.
Speaker 9: Because that was my next question was.
Speaker 14: So we're actually more more conservative than this would be as an organization.
Speaker 9: Great. It just in in in talking about this, suddenly it looks like you have nearly won a very, very high percentage of coverage on essentially eligible students that graduate from Denver.
Speaker 14: We have limits to who we cover.
Speaker 9: No matter what you cover. But by virtue of adding essentially $10 million into the stream. All right. And increasing the threshold to two, two and a half times Pell. Mm hmm. You almost. That's that's a signal.
Speaker 14: I think we, you know, you've you've got an adequate amount to to take a start in to your question about how many students we know that 74% of the jobs in four and a half years are going to require a certificate associates, a four year college degree. And even for those students who right now may not be compelled to get a postsecondary degree, we note we expect that to increase. And briefly, I remember when I started the Denver Scholarship Foundation in 2008, there was a gentleman who would I would say good morning to every year, every morning when I went into the garage, and I'd say good evening to him when I left. And now it's a machine that says, please, in search of parking ticket. So there's one last job that's available to people with a high school diploma. Denver is one of the hottest cities, as you know well in the country in terms of technology, in terms of our workforce. And so there's a high demand for skilled labor. And, you know, I'm not the one to speak to. This space is lots of business leaders in the audience. But I can tell you, I've heard loud and clear that there is a very strong need for more and more educated workforce in the city of Denver.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. Seeing no more questions, the public hearing is now closed and we'll move to comments. I'll defer my comments to the end. So anyone want to chime in? Councilwoman Black, you're up.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for all of you who are here tonight and who have worked so hard on this. Education is so important. We were talking about tuition. I remember when I went to see you a long time ago, I was shocked at my bill, which was $495 my freshman year. I am a graduate, as are my mother, my grandmother, my husband, cousins, aunts, uncles and my three kids. I have worked in our schools as an employee and as a volunteer and in our DPS future centers, which we all know are college counseling centers that are funded by the Denver Scholarship Foundation. I've been a supporter of the Denver Scholarship Foundation since its inception in 2007. I even interviewed some of our future center coordinators who were in those first three schools. I've seen firsthand how a scholarship can help change a student life, get them into college, and help them complete college. It's so important for the kids and for our state. Yes, education funding in Colorado is broken. We all agree on that. But this is something that could be a fix for thousands of Denver kids. I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's going to fix our whole state, but it's something that we can do at the local level to really impact our city and our workforce. As Dr. Easily said, we need educated kids to fill the jobs and to be clear to anyone who may just be tuning in on TV. Our vote tonight is not to raise taxes. It is to decide whether or not to put this on the ballot for our voters to decide. Affordability in Denver is a real issue. We read about it in the paper every day, and that includes housing, cost of living and college affordability. And families have just one budget. And if we can help a family pay for college, we're helping them live here in Denver. And I think we can give someone a chance with less than a penny on $10. I think it's something worth investing. I do share the same concerns that many people share, and I agree with The Denver Post that voters generosity is not limitless. But I do trust the voters to make the right decision. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilwoman Sussman, Europe.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, regarding sending this off to debate, I'm pretty sure let's not fool ourselves. Are referring it to the ballot will be seen as our support for it. Y'all have heard me before about my concerns about this particular proposal. I again thank the group for asking me to the party and even knowing that I would have some disagreements, I thought I was in quite admiration of you all to do that. Being against this is like being against motherhood and apple pie. Indeed, the fresh faced, ambitious young people that came up to talk to us were very eloquent and of course, that college tuition costs are out of sight. In fact, the only other sector of our economy where the prices have raised so much, haven't risen so much higher than inflation is health care and college tuition costs have outpaced even health care for debatable reasons, not the least of which is the loss of government support. Even though it's a very unpopular. City Council has an obligation to be responsible electeds. And we have to make difficult decisions, unpopular ones. We need to be responsible about our city's financial needs. They are great. And we need to be clear about our sphere of responsibility and our sphere of authority. We can't expect the citizens of Denver to fix the problems of out of control tuition costs and low retention and completion rates. Our state and federal government. Have that responsibility, as do the colleges themselves. We are a city government. We are not a city. Government is completely removed from education government. There is no educational institution over which we have any authority. None. Yet? None. There are no pieces of this proposal, this ballot proposal that holds any of the actual entities with the responsibility, such as the state, the federal government or the colleges that holds them responsible for the costs of tuition or the retention rates. As you heard Dr. Jordan say, I think very eloquently. This particular proposal doesn't require any reports from the college, and I would imagine not from the state or the federal government either, about how the money is being spent and where the non-profits, the extra people who are going to be helping. They have a responsibility to report to us. But the ultimate people who are going to receive tuition dollars have no responsibility to report on anything they're doing with the money. We're going to be asking. Denver City Council people. To raise taxes to give to. Organizations that will have no need to report on the ways in which it has been spent or the ways in which they have improved things by the money that they've received. And we're going to ask them to take on responsibilities that they don't normally have, which is responsibilities for educating our people . Now, education is very important, but I, I, I promise you, 29 years in higher education, I don't know if we want to wade into those waters. These are complicated water's edge, higher education. Are we are we asking the city to take on the responsibility of higher education because the state and the federal government haven't been able to do much with it? I just. Can't see supporting this ballot measure, although it does tug at the heart strings of the needs that we have for people to go to college. It's just not in our wheelhouse as city council government. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Cashman, you're up.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. For me, what we have here tonight is a bona fide conundrum. I see valid reasons why, as a voter, a citizen of Denver would vote for this proposal. And I see valid reasons why a citizen of Denver might choose to vote otherwise. To not fulfill our obligation to educate our children, to educate the next generations is to me, completely unacceptable. The fact that our state representatives continue to fall short in funding education in Colorado is equally unacceptable. The fact that this matter is primarily the purview of state government is painfully clear. There are infrastructure needs that we must address as city representatives. There is the housing crisis we all face. We need to find funds to provide housing for for the homeless and for our lower and middle class families. There are neighborhood planning needs that in this particular booming economy. These times we need to address will be asked to continue the lodgers tax to fund the National Western Center. Rebuilding, which I think we definitely must do in the near future, will be asked to continue the the tax for the scientific and cultural facilities district, which we absolutely must do. I believe the proponents of this bill have a real challenge ahead of them to convince voters to vote for this tax increase, while the less than a penny on $10 may seem insignificant. As my colleague said before, voters notoriously have a limit on what what they will choose to fund. The gut reaction that I have had from my constituents thus far has not been positive towards this measure. It's early, but I've yet to get my first email saying Go for it. So again, for me, this is a real conundrum. I agree that the colleges need to be held accountable with tuition. I would like to see this proposal have more hard and fast requirements on the institutions. I'd like to see more definite time limits and so on. But I don't think for me that it's appropriate for this body to legislate this matter by crushing this proposal tonight . I think. There was a matter that came before a previous council a couple of years ago. Most of you are aware of it was a land trade between the city and Denver public schools, and I didn't like the vote that came down. But the main thing that I didn't like was our city was robbed of the opportunity to debate two very excellent competing land uses, and I don't want that to happen here. I think our decision on whether or not or how to educate our children deserves a broader discussion. So and I wish to be clear, I am in no way indicating my vote should this matter come to ballot. But I definitely want to provide the community the opportunity for this important debate. So I will be supporting this this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank all of the speakers for being here tonight, for getting late. And we know the benches are hard, so we appreciate you being here. And I also want to thank the proponents and council president Herndon. This proposal has changed a lot over the last year and a half or so. And, you know, they deserve great credit for their flexibility and taking early feedback and really making it a much broader proposal. I think that in addition to some policy differences, some of my colleagues and we are disagreeing about what our role is here tonight. And I just I need to spend a minute on that. You know, I very much agree with Councilwoman Susman. If this were simply about taking a conversation to the community. My role would be to stay neutral and let that conversation happen. And the way to do that would have been a citizens initiative and gathering signatures. And if that had happened, I can promise you I would have stayed neutral. But when you bring a measure as an ordinance, you know, to put something on the ballot through this council, I believe I am being asked as a policymaker to weigh in with my judgment, to weigh in with my experience serving this city for, you know, going into my fifth year. And based on the information I have the information I've chaired the Budget Committee for several years on this council and have privy to the competing demands. I have. I have access to the places that our citizens and our residents and our businesses are asking and meeting the most from the city. And so I do believe it's my job to say whether I think this is the best rightist proposal for this source of revenue. And I think that's really important. There is an eloquent case that's been made and it's irrefutable regarding the need to address college access. The question I'm faced with tonight is whether this source right now is the right place for that. And I do believe that that's what we're being asked to do as legislators tonight, is to weigh in. So with that in mind, I have to go back to addressing some of the concerns I raised last week. And that really comes down to two issues. One, it is really struggling with this source of revenue at this time and the competing needs. You know, I appreciated the consideration you had of other sources, but to hear that a property tax for DPS takes it too far from their mission and risks the competing resources for their needs is exactly the same issue I face. It's exactly the same issue I face here at the city council, which is I have a charter and this is not in it. And I have demands that are in that charter that are not being met. And I, I that is a risk that deeply concerns me. But I really wanted to get there. I really did. I respect so many of the individuals who are here tonight. Your policy acumen and your eloquent case, the services you're already providing, very respected scholarship organizations. So even if I could suspend my belief and suspend my concern about the competing resources, the question then becomes, is this the exact right proposal? It is the best proposal. I don't like the 25 ed 25 year age limit. It really does cut out the technical workforce that Denver needs for middle income jobs who don't tend to get their certificates in education, you know, early in their lives. But even more than that, this is the this is the key for me. I just can't get there, which is I can't point to a definitive return on investment for dollars that go out of this community. I understand that not everyone wants to go to college in Denver. I understand that some people go to college in Greeley and Durango. They come back. But I can't say to my taxpayer I'm capturing and ROI on every dollar spent for Denver and I'm a team player. You know, we are part of the scientific and cultural district with the rest of the region. And I'm okay that those dollars leave Denver because it's a regional partnership. Their dollars come in, our dollars go out. This is us going it alone and this is us not guaranteeing a return on investment for every dollar we invest. And that just is the piece that that I can't get there on. I know that this is going to pass tonight based on my colleague's comments. And so I will say this. If the voters approve this, I will wish for its success. I will, you know, understand and believe that our voters have spoken. And so, you know, I'm in no ways, you know, planning to go out there and campaign against it. But it's my obligation to share my judgment based on the information I have in this job. And that information is that this is not the best proposal and it's not the right source of revenue. So those for those reasons, I'm going to have to vote against this tonight, but we will see what the voters say. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry about that. Yeah. I struggle. I, I my comments reflect the fact that just in the testimony today and in the testimony today, we heard that there are 90,000 students in DPS. And even if you awarded 9000 scholarships, there's nine out of every ten students aren't getting a benefit from this. And those I mean, what we heard was about 4500 or so students might actually get a scholarship. That number of people represent less than 1% of the total population of the city of Denver. But when you impose a sales tax, any any person making a taxable sale will pay for that. So 100%, even if you give your kids a couple of bucks to go to the store to buy a taxable item, 100% of the population will be paying this tax to then support less than 1% of the population. And so that's where I struggle. I like it conceptually, but I think this is the wrong tool because our own tax guide states that the purpose of the sales tax is to generate funds for the payment of expenses of operating and improving the city and its facilities, and for the payment of principal and interest due on certain municipal bonds. This is a public taxing mechanism to sort of serve a public good and to to use that instrument to serve a fraction of 1% of the population in this regard, that without any sort of mechanism to actually say Denver's going to benefit from that in the future is sort of to defer this tax in a way that I can use this tale's tax in a way that I just I can't refer that to ballot. There is the citizen initiative. You know, you probably could get the entire 18 year old population of DPS to sign that petition and get this thing on the ballot. There is a mechanism to do this that doesn't involve us trying to to program and prescribe, I mean, to sort of weigh in this way. And so it's a great idea conceptually. But the funding is is where I struggle with. And so those are my thoughts. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Well, I echo all my colleagues comments about the concerns, the pluses and minuses of this ordinance. And there's no question that higher education is a state responsibility. And we've got tremendous needs of our city. We've got to take care of those needs. But I also believe in educating our our kids. You know, they're the future of our city. And I want to try to do something to educate our workforce, to make sure we are successful economically in our city. So I struggle with this a lot. And the thing that I heard most when I go through my whole campaign and I campaigned through every neighborhood in District ten and has so many conversations with my constituents, the thing they said to me was, let me have a voice. Let me be a part of the decision making process. I'm tired of the city making decisions for me all the time. Let me be a part of that process. And the emails that I've gotten, I've gotten a lot of different emails, but the common theme of the emails was, let me to help be a part of that process. So I understand the concerns everyone has here tonight, and it's very difficult, but I want our citizens to be a part of this decision. So I'm going to vote yes for this and and hope our citizens are well educated about the pros and cons of this legislation. And I also want to encourage all of our citizens to get out and vote in November. The low participation of our our citizens in voting is terrible. And so we need to make sure we not only educate everyone about this ordinance, but also encourage everyone to get out and vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I admit.
Speaker 9: I did, but I did not get.
Speaker 12: The hearing to go this long. But I'm glad I did. I'm glad folks stayed.
Speaker 1: For the end of this. I want to know where the girls from. Barnum and Westwood.
Speaker 0: Where are they? Still here.
Speaker 10: They have homework?
Speaker 12: Yeah. All right. School board member. All right. Got to get. Got to buy the ticket before you get on the train. Right. Okay. I understand my colleague's reservations about about the funding.
Speaker 1: I understand when there is no measure.
Speaker 12: That holds the colleges and universities accountable and reporting or anything like that. But from what I understand, we can't even we don't even have that authority in the city to have any of the colleges report to us. Even if we did, even if we said put it in there, we wouldn't be able to legally defend it. I know tuition is out of control. And I know that that. On the federal level and on the state level, it's gridlock. The question itself never gets through committee. Let alone the governor's desk. And meanwhile, we're the ones footing the bill. Students are footing the bill. The tuition costs keep going up. And it stresses families and squeezes them out. And it prices out our students. And let me just preface what I'm about to say by saying, yes, there are some institutions that are doing their best. I appreciate Metro State University.
Speaker 1: Being here, and I'm wondering why SIU or.
Speaker 12: CSU or any other college or university isn't here? Well, I guess the state call a community college was here.
Speaker 1: But. That to me, that.
Speaker 12: That's what bothers me. However, it's not about the politics of the state. It's not about the politics at the colleges or in academia. It is about what's happening in our city. I was looking at census tracts, census tract maps today throughout our city.
Speaker 1: And I was remembering the debate that.
Speaker 9: We had.
Speaker 12: At our last public hearing, not a public hearing, but the last time we had this bill in front of us. And folks had talked about sidewalks and what we do as a municipality, what the city and county and Denver does have the authority to regulate and does have the authority to spend its budget on. And I looked at that map and I looked for the past. 50 years. Especially since part of our district was even part of Denver since until about 1950. I look at that map. And despite my predecessors hard work and despite. Advocacy. That map shows two different Denver's. That map shows great inequality. When you look at sidewalks, guess where they're missing? West of the Platte. When you look at housing stock. Where's the worst quality? Where are we hurting? West of the.
Speaker 1: Highway. You look at.
Speaker 12: Street paving when you look at Brexiteers. Every single. When you look at grocery stores and you look at transportation access. When you look at park space.
Speaker 1: It tells you the same story when you look at income. It tells you the same story.
Speaker 12: Poverty. And you go into education. And what hurts the most.
Speaker 1: Is that the neighborhood of Westwood? Has the lowest.
Speaker 12: Amount of bays in the whole city. It's in the single digits, folks. And it's not because those of us from Westwood and Barnum. Don't want to go. Or don't try. Or don't have the capacity. It's because we are priced out. And you look at what's happening in this city and what leads to gentrification or at least all this. It's dead. It's our family's debt and bad credit and not being able to sustain.
Speaker 1: A job.
Speaker 12: With a fight for those jobs to get.
Speaker 1: Over their. What's this got to do with this? Well, because those zip codes. 8020480219. They said.
Speaker 12: We always say a zip code should not determine your future, but it has for the last 50 years, and we are tired of it.
Speaker 1: And even though we've been paving streets and putting in sidewalks and trying to close the park.
Speaker 12: Gap and killing food deserts and putting.
Speaker 1: Replacing liquor stores at grocery stores, even though.
Speaker 12: We've been doing this until we have no nails left until our.
Speaker 1: Last breath, we will try. It will not it will not be enough unless we do something in the education now.
Speaker 12: When you look at education, you look at the schools that are performing it or not perform, were all the blue schools there are.
Speaker 1: East of the river. And it's not an us versus them that I'm trying to. It is an end situation. It's not either or. I'm not saying pick Denver. It's and. It's East and west. What are the things? How are we going to fix that? You know how we fix that?
Speaker 12: We give the opportunity.
Speaker 1: For Westwood and Barnham and Hyland Island. You guys are doing really well. Councilman Ruby Hill Every everything west.
Speaker 12: Of that river ath ma park, those areas that.
Speaker 1: Are hurting even into Montebello and Whittier and Cole, you give all those folks the opportunity to prove who they are.
Speaker 12: And you know what? You give those folks an opportunity.
Speaker 1: Just a hand up saying, here, come on. Here's a hint. Give them the opportunity and we will.
Speaker 12: Change the neighborhoods. We will change the cities. We will create change in those neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: Now, this isn't the end all be all, but $4,000 a year is a heck of a support.
Speaker 12: And if we can't depend on our expected.
Speaker 1: Family contribution and if we don't have it.
Speaker 12: Then there's that help up. Because not because of lack of will, it's because of lack of funding. And one thing I got to say, yes, it's constituents, maybe. Under 17, a lot of them. Very. I don't know if there's many, very many 18 year olds that are still in.
Speaker 1: High school, seniors in high school. I was one because I had to repeat one grade, but. Supposed to laugh.
Speaker 12: Their voters. And they are also taxpayers. As a matter of fact. My daughter is a taxpayer and she's only eight years old. So when we say taxpayers, it's one in the same. They are also paying the bill for themselves and they will continue to dwell on past failures. So I would love to see I think Councilman Cashman put it very, very well. I think it's time to put it on the ballot and let folks decide for themselves.
Speaker 0: Let us decide for themselves.
Speaker 12: And yes, get that vote out. It doesn't matter if you're pro or against. Please get it out anyway. I took a lot of time. I'm sorry. Let's move forward. Yes, let's move forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Everything that was said in here and all the testimony, everything that was said about the struggles that students face in meeting the exorbitant costs of higher education and the importance of completing a degree or a certificate or an associate's degree is so very true. But there are agencies in this city and in this state whose core mission is education. We are not one of them. I question the assertion that a mill levy from DPS could only be used to subsidize the college tuition of students who graduated from DPS high schools. After all, DPS mill levy is used for anybody and everybody, whatever age, can walk into Emily Griffith Opportunity School. I don't believe we could tell a Denver student who graduated, say, from Mullen that they can't participate in this program if it came through as a no levy from DPS. Since DPS has told us that this is this is not something that they want to take on because they're handling so many issues with K-12. And that is true. And we have, as Councilwoman Kennish pointed out, we have core responsibilities as well. But since the way the program is set up as a pass through to a not to a governing body that is appointed by us, why could that not that same thing not work with DPS? This isn't something that's going to be managed here in City Hall. After all, the sales tax revenue is going to be done by this governing organization that we set up. So we are not one of them. We have core responsibilities that we are struggling to meet as well. Safety, affordable housing, crumbling streets and infrastructure. It doesn't matter. As our deputy mayor and CFO Carrie Kennedy said that to me, it doesn't matter that this is just a slight increase in the sales tax or that other cities have higher sales tax. That doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is what we're raising that money for. And subsidizing college tuition costs simply isn't a municipal responsibility. The problem with college affordability is the rapidly rising cost, not the inability to pay for it. We'll keep chasing we'll keep chasing these cost increases by raising more and more money for it. And we're satisfying the people who are raising the costs and are having no incentive to contain the costs. We think the real problem is the inability to pay these ever rising costs, when the real problem is the ever rising costs of combating the rising costs of higher education by taxing the public to try to meet those increases is like trying to solve the obesity problem by throwing an all you can eat buffet. I cannot ask the struggling working families of Mali, Brentwood or Harvey Park to pay anything more at the cash register when they buy school supplies or clothes for their kids so that we can subsidize college tuition cost increases. When they have in southwest Denver the highest response time to police 911 calls. When I have an Iraqi war veteran in a wheelchair who cannot even go down his street anymore in the winter because we don't have a sidewalk in his neighborhood or when our streets haven't been touched, some of them in 20 or 30 years. I cannot ask those people to pay more at the cash register to subsidize college tuition. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I have to say that. I've been listening to my constituents call and talking with lots of folks and listening to my colleagues tonight, and I have to appreciate the dialog. I am a little disappointed there weren't any students from 80239 or 80249 here. But I do know that there are students who have been served by these organizations, and I think that that might also speak to.
Speaker 6: Some of the barriers that.
Speaker 8: Arise for especially students who are first generation or students who are classified as low income to gain access to even get transportation to come and be here tonight, to have the privilege of time and to be able to sit and be here and participate. And, you know, I understand that everything is not addressed. Everything is not covered in this council bill, which makes it very, very difficult. But I have to believe that the return on investment in the lives that will be transformed by an opportunity by this is much bigger and broader than all of the details that we could pick it apart at and the communities that will be affected, making our city's workforce stronger. And I understand innately how difficult it is to run a nonprofit. I founded a nonprofit. I ran one for almost 20 years. It is the most terrifying thing every year when you know that you have to raise your entire budget. It's a very big adjustment for me. I haven't bought a piece of furniture from my council office because I just can't make myself spend that money. I go to surplus and pick through their stuff because I want those tax dollars to go back to the folks in District 11. And knowing the privilege of running a501 C3 nonprofit. The immense responsibility that goes along with that because you have foundation, you have individuals donations, who they've given you their money to have that trust that you're going to fulfill your mission. And the expanded reporting, accountability, financial audits that go into running a nonprofit. I know that this money will be very well spent and invested and in doing the educational work that I've done for 20 years. When you invest in human beings and you invest in lives, I'm sorry, but.
Speaker 6: There's no guarantees.
Speaker 8: Because human beings are messy. Our lives are messy, communities are messy. And that's the beauty of being a human being and living in the communities of Montebello or Green Valley Ranch. Things arise and they get messy and there's no return on your investment. There's a return on.
Speaker 6: Investment.
Speaker 8: In putting the money to prisons because, you know, you have your clientele there. You know, they have to eat. You know, you have to clothe them. You know that they're going to be there. And so I urge my colleagues to make that return on investment in human lives. I also urge the board that is the seven member board. That you have a very robust accountability and.
Speaker 6: Transparency.
Speaker 8: More robust that is than outlined in this. There's much, much more that you need to be reporting on to convey to the voters, our constituents, the young people who are investing into this, because 16, 17, 15.
Speaker 6: Year olds are taxpayers as well.
Speaker 8: Many that live in my district because they have to work to help their families out. The 10% administrative cost, you know, for running a nonprofit, kind of that magic number is 8020. Every dollar, 80% goes back to your programs. 20% goes towards administration. Because, again, when you invest in human beings and you invest in lives, you need people who are going to work within these organizations that don't leave. You need to be able to pay good wages. You need to pay a livable wage for people to stay.
Speaker 6: The worst thing that can happen, especially when.
Speaker 8: You invest in people's lives, is somebody stays for a year with a program and then they leave to go get a better job somewhere because they have to pay their own bills. And so that 10%, I think, is a very realistic amount. And, you know, my campaign slogan was Your voice, our community. Far be it for me to take my community's voice away. I want them to have the opportunity to ask all of these very hard.
Speaker 6: Questions.
Speaker 8: And to debate it. And, you know, everybody talks about the very low voter turnout in my community. That is a systemic result of folks struggling, not having livable wages and.
Speaker 6: Not having the.
Speaker 8: Bandwidth or the feeling that their voice is going to be heard. And through investing in human beings, I would predict and you can hold me to this when we invest in human beings more so, we're going to see an increase in civic engagement in.
Speaker 6: Parents being able to advocate for their own.
Speaker 8: Children in schools and for groups of people.
Speaker 6: To advocate for better wages, health care and benefits. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to I want to thank all of you for coming, for speaking, for sticking with us and to all my colleagues for the great comments and questions and debate on this for me tonight. This is not a choice between roads and kids. It's not a choice between housing the homeless or making college more affordable for our kids. There is no other proposal on the floor we're not weighing. Is this better than something else we're looking at? Is this a good idea? Is this something that we want to invest? Is this something that we want to ask the voters? Did they want to invest in? And that even with this this increase in tax, we heard from our CFO that we currently ranked seventh most affordable sales tax and we would remain at the seventh lowest sales tax. There is no greater investment that we can make in our city than investing in our kids. We spent a lot of time talking about the affordability of our city. How do we make sure that people can live in the city? What better way to invest and make sure that kids growing up in Denver can afford to live in Denver than helping them afford that college degree, that post high school education that allows them to make more money and afford to live here. And I certainly think that investing in our kids is a greater investment than building a stadium for our beloved Broncos. Born and raised, I'm a huge Peyton fan. But if if we were able to ask our taxpayers if they wanted to add that to sales tax, I think this is an even greater investment and that deserves a debate and an opportunity for voters to say, yes, I support our kids at a rate that is slightly lower than we were willing to spend on building a stadium. I think so often as happens with politics, we get into a debate about whose job it is or what the best mechanism is. And at the end of the day, in in our city and our state, our kids are caught in the crossfire and we're failing them. And tonight we have something in front of us that allows us to take to the voters an option to stop debating whose job it is, to stop debating where the money should come from , or who of us should have taken action. But to say, hey, this body, this part of government is willing to stand up and put an option forward to help be a part of the solution. And for all of those reasons, I will be happily supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I also appreciate the hearty discussion that we have had here tonight and the thorough and thoughtful questions and the responses that we have received. I appreciate all of you for sitting through this meeting. This discussion actually started about five and a half years ago when Mr. Tim Marcus approached then Mayor Hickenlooper asking for Denver to match the $50 million that he put aside for what is now the Denver Scholarship Foundation. And I appreciate Mr. Marcus's. Investment and commitment to our young people in our community. And without that program, we have many of the young people who testified that probably would not have had the opportunity to go on to college and to get their degrees and to be able to be here and speak as as articulately as they did and to be representing the various professions that they're now in. I see two of our young people that came to committee and testified before us. I agree with my colleagues about the fact that this should not be one of our core functions. I believe this should be a DPS preferred initiative, not a Denver City Council preferred initiative because education is their. Their focus and their priority. I also agree that we want to make sure that we have the kind of work force in our city that our businesses need. We often hear at various functions that, you know, we're all invited to that talk about the kinds of businesses that we're attracting. I mean, you look just at the construction industry right now and how much construction is going on. And, you know, one would argue that that's not one of these professions that we're were referring to as far as young people going to school and getting a college degree. But many of those that go through the apprenticeship programs are actually being educated and come out with degrees in certification, but they can't fill those jobs fast enough. And they're bringing in their workforce from other communities, other cities, because we just don't have the workforce here. I think it's important that as our public education system is now working to identify professions where there is a demand and a need for workers to help, you know, a lot of times young people don't know what they want to do when they get out of college. They know they want to go to college and they want to get a degree, but they're not sure exactly, you know, what they want to do. But by knowing and being given the opportunity to do internships with different businesses, it helps guide and shape who our young people want to become. And I know that that's one of the things that Denver Public Schools is moving towards, is is to help provide that. And with some of the guidance and assistance from the Denver Scholarship Foundation, I know we have a number of really good scholarship organizations. I'm very familiar with all the great work that the Latin American Education Foundation has done. When this conversation started last year, I believe it was last year, maybe the year before, when the talk was about just one organization being the beneficiary of these scholarship dollars. I was one of the people who said, you need to go back and have a much larger community conversation about this issue so that there are other scholarship organizations who can participate and that other people in this community know what's going on. That did, in fact, happen. There was a much broader conversation. We heard from a number of the speakers who were involved in that committee process. And, you know, what we have in in front of us, I think is not perfect. But I think it's important that we do invest in our kids. I remember during the summer of violence, we invested in our kids. But you know what? We were putting our money into programs that kept kids safe. We were spending money on more cops. We were spending money on programs that kept our kids off the streets. And that was just survival to make sure our kids were not getting caught in the crossfire of the violence that was happening in our community, where we saw a number of our kids laid to rest from the violence. Many of them found themselves sitting in prison from the violence. That's not the kind of investment I think we should be focusing on. This is more appropriate for the kind of investment that is important for our youth. And I have to divulge that I've got three grandchildren in high school that that may be beneficiaries of these dollars . I don't know that that considers me to be a conflict of interest here. I wouldn't directly benefit. But the fact is we have lots of young people in our community whose parents do not have the resources to be able to afford their children, to be able to go on to school. And I think this opportunity that. All Denver residents will have the opportunity to vote on will give our children a fighting chance. And so I will be supporting this tonight. I do wish that it would have been Denver public schools taking the lead and not Denver City Council, because there really is a clear separation between, you know , the role of our public education institution in this city and the role that we play. And yes, we do have many needs and many demands, and we'll be dealing with all of that as we're going through our budget process. We had a budget retreat just a couple of weeks ago to talk about priorities that we all want to see in the city budget. But this is one where the voters do get to decide and they make the ultimate decision. And I with all the many issues that we have had on the ballot in this city, we've got a very articulate and an educated electorate, and they will make the right decision that they believe is right for this city. So with that, I just want to thank you, Mr. President, for your efforts in working on this issue and bringing this forward. I know it's not been always an easy conversation, but it's an important one and it's important for this city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And I will just simply add, let's let's have a debate. I mean, most people on this dyas agree that there is a workforce development shortage. The jobs that we are bringing in, we do not have the homegrown workforce to fill those jobs. How do we come to a solution? It is easy to troubleshoot any ordinance that comes before us and say there's an issue here or there's an issue there, and if we do that, then we there will nothing that will ever be passed because we will never get to the perfect ordinance. But what we have here is something we have something that can make a difference in the lives of young people. Generational differences. And I thought as a statistic that I believe Dr. Easley said for the dollar, investment generated $9.59. It's almost tenfold a tenfold investment in a person. And people turn around and say education is not the purview of the municipal level. It's at the state level. And I said this last week, I'll say it again. And why are we about to debate construction defects? Because that is exactly a state purview. But we're going to have a conversation as well as other municipalities have already done. So if it negatively impacts our municipality, we have and we have the opportunity to do a solution, let's do so and let's just have a debate. The proponents of this have work to do to demonstrate to the people why this is important. But I think it would be very unfortunate if this body right here simply said we're not even going to allow it to have a discussion. I shouldn't fault the proponents just because they choose to go the route of an ordinance versus petition. They have that right. That is the way to do so. And so I just think this is a great opportunity to bookend what we're doing with the Denver Preschool Program. And when the Denver Preschool Program came out, they said the exact same things about the Denver preschool program that we're saying right now. It's not our purview. And look how a tremendous success that has been. And so we have the opportunity to do something similar, or at the very least, let's have a conversation about it come November . Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Black eye.
Speaker 3: Clark, I.
Speaker 9: Espinosa No.
Speaker 12: Flynn No.
Speaker 3: Gilmore Cashman. I can eat.
Speaker 12: Lopez I.
Speaker 3: Knew. Ortega I. Susman No, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please cast your vote in the results.
Speaker 3: Eight Ice, four nays, eight.
Speaker 0: Ice, four nays. 553 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 6: Denver eight TV's Your City, Your Source.
Speaker 1: Denver eight. On TV and online.
|
Bill
|
CB15-0553: Denver College Affordability Initiative a) Presentation. b) Fifteen (15) minutes of public comment on proposal. Two minutes per speaker and equal opportunity for opposing perspectives as determined by the Committee Chair. Individuals wishing to speak must sign up in the Council Conference room (3rd Floor City & County Building, Rm. 391) beginning 15 minutes prior to the Committee’s scheduled start time of 1:30 pm. Sign up ends at 1:15 pm. The order of speakers is determined by the Committee Chair. c) Discussion/Action.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Creates a fund to help young Denverites attend higher education and certificate programs. This bill must pass no later than August 31, 2015 to meet the deadlines for the November ballot. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-5-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172015_15-0522
|
Speaker 3: We're going to wait for technology to catch up. It has been moved. Good luck with that move. And secretary also council members are taking the item out of order. Does not require comment. It is just a straight yes or no vote. So, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Flynn I Gillmor I Cashman I can each i lopez I knew Ortega I. Susman, I. Brooks Hi, black eye. Clerk Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, Councilwoman Ortega's back.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Ortega.
Speaker 3: And count up. We got him. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939 522 may be taken out of order. So now, Councilman Flynn, you may offer your motion. New Order published. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 522 be ordered published.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Now time for comments. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Last week I moved to hold this in committee until next week for first for publication, because I had some concerns about going from a rental rate of a dollar a year to what I thought was $5,000 a month. But I now see, because it includes the share of utilities, is actually asking the Colorado Symphony to pay monthly about $8,750 a month. I call it back to the floor now because I just want to keep moving it forward. I said that I would vote yes on this if in fact those lease payments could be sent. Two ways to the arts and Venues Special Revenue Fund, which I thought up until about 90 minutes ago, would be the case. I find out now that no, because this is 1245 Tampa and this is not an arts and venues building that the lease would go disappear basically into our general fund. I have a high level of discomfort for the next 15 months before the symphony finally moves out of this building of extracting $75,000 from them for the general fund. I don't think we need that needed that much that we need to ask the struggling cultural organization to do that. And so because it cannot go into a special revenue fund, I put it back on the floor and I will vote. No, thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, in the comments. 522 Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. We had a lengthy discussion about this issue when it came to committee, and I think some of the frustration, if you will, that's part of what some of us experienced is from knowing that this building has historically been used by arts and venues. Yes, it may not be part of arts and venues, portfolio of properties that they manage, but since it was used as a jail, I can't remember. And I checked in with a couple of my colleagues that served on this dais for many, many years. And their recollection is it was always used by arts and venues. So, you know, the issue is about whether or not we extend the lease for the Colorado Symphony on what has been the third or fourth floor, but now it's only for the fourth floor. And the amount of what they're being asked to pay disturbs me as well, knowing the financial challenges that they have had and the desire that I believe we all have to try to keep them in our arts complex. And I'm concerned about what this does to their ability to, you know, find other space, because they're going to have to be paying everything out at this location. Some of the other tenants that utilize other venues on the site are not there on a consistent basis. They have periodic events and shows at the at the complex. So I'm struggling with this one as to whether or not to support it, because to not support it means that the symphony would be essentially asked to leave even sooner than what this contract extension and increase in payment requires. And it just, you know, begs the question, what is our commitment to the arts in this community? We know that the creative industries in this city generate $1.8 billion, according to the CBC's 2013 study that they did. And I'm just I'm not sure that I actually want to vote for this tonight, but to not vote for it means then that per the communications that we've received from the administration is that they would be essentially out of this facility even sooner. And that doesn't feel good either. So I just and just expressing my frustrations with how we have dealt with what has been a longstanding tenant in our performing arts complex. And as we're doing the, you know, the master plan visioning for our performing arts complex and trying to figure out what it is that we want it to be in the future. In my mind, the symphony is part of that big picture conversation and. This sort of, sort of kind of turns ah turns our ear on that. And so anyway, I'll just stop it that I'm just expressing my frustrations with this whole project and process and how it's going and knowing that this particular building is part of the discussions of the CPA complex. But yet, you know, when it came forward for a lease for the Denver Partnership, which is doing great work there, by the way, the the work they're doing and the investment they made in the building is phenomenal. But as they take over the third floor, if they continue to make greater investment and we decide we need and want that building for the rest of the performing arts complex as it's been used in the past, will then have to buy out the Denver partnership for any additional investment they make into that building. So it just seems like, you know, internally the right arm doesn't know what the left arm is doing. And and that's part of what feels so frustrating here because, you know, we should have had that bigger picture conversation before we did a long term lease on this particular building. And and it's unfortunate that that's not the way it's moving. So. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Brooks up.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. And just for knowledge of the public before we approve any and a tenant agreement, the the lessee agrees to this. And so the symphony has agreed to this arrangement. And I think that's just important to underscore. But I want to call up Kent Rice to the to the microphone. And just to answer a couple of questions, you know, this is I wasn't here last week, but we had a lengthy, lengthy discussion around this and tried to answer some questions. But but can't I guess what I would love for you to answer is some of the conversations you've had with the symphony and their arrangement. I think Councilwoman Ortega underscored that if we vote this down that the symphony will no longer have a place and we'd have to go back to the drawing board. And can you kind of talk about maybe if you if you know a little bit about this symphony's future and and some of the things that we've done as a city to try and sustain them in the city.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Council Members Kent Rice, Executive Director for Arts and Venues. I'm not sure if I'm the left hand or the right hand, but I'm definitely one of the hands on the old hand, I think. So the symphony has always paid rent to be at that. Your concert hall until two years ago, just as the opera and the ballet have always paid ground to perform at the COC. And so that is the tradition in the history. The not paying rent, the zero rental rate they've had at 1245 for office space is a very recent phenomenon, and it's something that arts and venues helped put together for them for two reasons. One is that they were in financial trouble. And by the way, many symphonies across the country struggle financially from time to time. That's not unusual. But the real issue has to do with that concert hall and the fact that we had planned to close it for renovation. So they were going to have to move their offices out of the hall. When we decided not to do that, I felt a fair thing to do was to provide some accommodation for them. So I lobbied to get them a two year dollar a year rent deal at 1245 Tampa. This was done in the context of knowing that the downtown Denver Partnership was going to be starting its new development program for the building and putting a lot of capital in there. But I persuaded the partnership, the mayor and others that this two year temporary free rent deal was worth doing for the symphony, and also to give the partnership a chance to get the commons, as it's called, up and running. There was a large concern about what would happen at the end of two years and into the lease agreement was written a stipulation that the symphony would have to pay more than $12,000 a month if it failed to move out as of October 1st . So working with the real estate division, we put together a plan to let them stay in 1245 Tampa for 15 or 16 months at the same rate they used to pay for offices in Bettcher. So for years they have paid an amount growing up towards 60,000. I think you've been given some information about that in the past, but they paid kind of 40, 45,000 over a long period of time growing up towards 60,000. So essentially they're currently paying what they have paid all along, except for the past two years. So that's the history. I'll also tell you that years ago, in the past century, the symphony received about a quarter of $1,000,000 in bad debt write off when they were in severe financial trouble. And that was reducing or having the city arts and venues agree to take care of other expenses. I'll also tell you that for the opera in the ballet, when they struggle financially, we make payment arrangements. So we we provide a fair amount of support to our resident companies in the arts complex and on an ongoing basis.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You probably want to stay close because there are some more people in the queue.
Speaker 10: I'm going nowhere. Councilman okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Brooks was with great foresight. I actually only have one question, which is it's not uncommon for us to have mixed feelings about pieces of leases or contracts we don't get to negotiate directly. That's part of the challenge of the the branches of government. And we don't get to sit in the room doing the details of these agreements. But in many cases where there's something that helps us to feel a little better, we tend to find common ground. And when Councilman Flynn proposed the idea that these funds be dedicated back towards better, it seemed like a pretty easy thing to agree to. And I was surprised to hear. I understand that by design, these funds don't flow back to arts and venues because it's not your building. But what I don't understand is why you're not willing to dedicate them to flow towards a voucher and be dedicated in that way to help find some common ground. I was surprised that that was not something that that, you know, and I don't know who, but the administration generally was not willing to.
Speaker 10: You and Councilman King each. The answer to that is that it never even came up as a topic. We have $17 million set aside for the renovation of Bettcher, which will be used eventually for the next stage of redeveloping the whole complex. The building, as pointed out by Councilman Ortega, is not our sun venue's building, so it's not in our portfolio. We proposed the rental agreement with the real estate division, but the $5,000 a month for 15 or 16 months didn't it didn't seem like it was worth our arguing for. Honestly, this might.
Speaker 7: Be a left hand, right hand situation. Another piece I am has to.
Speaker 9: Answer that question.
Speaker 7: Because it did come up and I believe my colleague actually had a conversation about it. So I guess it did.
Speaker 9: Sky Stuart Mayor's Office and we had an internal.
Speaker 5: Conversation about this that as Kent points.
Speaker 9: Out, there are rental agreements that better and those funds do go into the arts and venues. Special Revenue Fund. There are also multiple sources for capital maintenance dollars on arts and venues facilities. The 1245 Tampa building is maintained by general services. And so to have the lease revenues.
Speaker 5: Go into the general fund where they can match up with the facility, that's the.
Speaker 9: Agency that's responsible for maintaining that facility.
Speaker 7: Makes more sense to us that.
Speaker 9: We have a source, multiple sources.
Speaker 7: For capital maintenance at the arts complex for those facilities.
Speaker 10: Councilman Kennedy, it didn't come up before the lease was signed. I know the idea came up. It was raised by several council members, but not before the symphony had already agreed to the terms. Yeah.
Speaker 7: I'm going to go out and vote for this because I do think it's important to allow the symphony to continue their occupancy. But I will point out that no one bettcher is not fully paid for the lowest estimate to renovate that year or to make it whatever it is. 17 million doesn't cover it yet. And so the idea of dedicating these resources in my mind would have been an appropriate way to kind of bridge the gap. And I'm disappointed we didn't do that. I get the theory about general services, but the truth is none of the sources that you've identified completely pay for bettcher there's still a gap. So any dollars we could put towards that seems prudent. But it makes sense to me to keep the symphony there that this was, you know, something that they agreed to. And so not loving this lease, I'm going to vote for it tonight to keep things moving forward with the understanding that we will have a conversation about the future of that building at a later date. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the information about the stipulated rate helps immensely because unfortunately, we get this after, you know, we're new council, many of us are we get this and it's presented in one way with and we're missing an important context on how the how this agreement how you got the symphony to agree to sort of what seemed like drastic shift in position when downtown Denver partnership has such a a you know, a sweet deal in some regards. And so having more background, at least for me, really helps in understanding how it is that a party that's not present at that discussion could arrive at some sort of decision where now this seems like a compromise rather than sort of the heavy handed move to sort of either move in, pay more or ease your stay and pay more, you know, so that helps. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Councilman Espinosa, I'll just respond to that by saying the symphony president was thrilled with this. When I talked to him after the real estate chief and I met, they had no place to move their offices. And he said, this is a great solution for us. So I'm not saying there couldn't have been a different one or a better one, but he called me twice to thank me. So I feel like at least at the front end of the discussion, the symphony was quite happy with what the proposal was.
Speaker 0: And unfortunately that part wasn't conveyed to the new council members and those of us who weren't privy to that, that level of discussion really benefited from it.
Speaker 10: Apologize for that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Just real quickly. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few follow ups compared to the alternatives, of course, it was a much better deal because the alternative was to go out on the market and pay probably a lot more. I'm just curious about why there was perceived to be a need to extract rent from them for the final 15 months when they'd already just had a dollar a year deal. It's not I you know, I've covered a lot of city council activities in this room for a quarter century. And if if October 1st came up and if the administration were agreeable, I'm sure the sheriff wouldn't be there to put them out on the street if another if another path forward were to be found. The rent in the 2010 lease agreement, the symphony paid rent on a 4% annual escalator. But they did not pay for maintenance. They didn't pay. A share of the utility costs. We're asking them not only to pay $5,000, but also to pay 3750 on average a month toward the utilities, which they have not been asked to pay, even when they were at better haul for their office space. And of course, they pay they pay rent when they perform in there, as do any other, as does any other institution. So I'm not sure that the deal. I don't know that Luca Brasi was in the room as well when you were negotiating this, but I'm sure that there were not many favorable choices for the symphony to go forward. The the last point I had and that was the last point. So thank you. I'm ready. I'm ready to go forward and spread unless someone else has something.
Speaker 3: Got you. We got one more councilman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You know, just because it's in my district, I just want to say a couple more things, because there's some been some things that were thrown out. And I just want to bring some context to the public. A couple of things that were thrown out were about the comments and the downturn of our partnership. This is actually a three way partnership with obviously Economic Development, Colorado Technology Institute and the downtown Denver Partnership, and they put over $1,000,000 into the tie to tenant improvements. And so that's why that was adjusted for the rent. And this is the only low, bare tech startup opportunity that we have in the city where anyone can come off the street and learn about the technology institute and tech startups in a way where they don't have to be a part of a company. And so it's a great opportunity for us. And the second thing I want to say is I met a lot with Jerry Kern. I met with the symphony. And I just want to encourage I've heard a couple of times on the dais that we you know, we want to save the symphony. We want to do. Councilman Lopez is on the board. I'm sure he'd encourage this as well for us individually as council members to go and meet with Jerry Kern, go look at the financials and go talk about some of the ideas that we have to keep the symphony alive in Denver, because I'm sure he'd welcome the help . Thank you.
Speaker 10: Council Councilman. Council president, please, if I could just respond. And I think for the new council members, it's quite important. Why did we not recommend a free rent deal to continue? I was very adamant about that and I remain adamant. The reason is we have many other people who pay rent. The CPA pays rent, the opera pays rent, the ballet pays rent. The period in which the symphony got free rent was because the city would have inconvenienced them had they had to move out once their future was clear and they knew they had a couple of years to perform and better for the city to give them free rent would have immediately caused other cultural groups to come in and ask for free rent. So I think that's important historical context about why it's not a free rent deal any longer.
Speaker 3: All right. Any other comments or questions? 522.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, just a quick question. Do the ballet and the opera have office space at Deepak?
Speaker 10: They do not.
Speaker 8: Like. That's why they're not paying your rent. They don't have an office space there.
Speaker 10: The free rent. I should have just I shouldn't have gone down this path. The rent had to do with the rent paid overall for two years for the concert hall and the office space. The symphony used to pay rent for the concert hall and the office space. When we agreed to not charge them rent at all, it was for the office space and the performance hall. So that's a very good question. Obviously the the rental for the hall is much, much greater than the office space. And the other thing we did for your information is couch this and imagine 2020 cultural accessibility. So we gave away the equivalent of tickets with the symphony in exchange for what the rent was that they would have paid us. But I conflated two things. There's office rent and hall rent and they got both free for the two years. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Kathryn Lopez, Europe.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just had a comment and this just, I think, was one of the questions that I that I wanted to ask was answered and is clarified in terms of how does that compare with some of the other folks who were there, too, including the ballet and the opera? On a symphony level, yes, it's struggling. And I think, you know, this definitely needs to move forward. We're kind of in a tight conundrum here, but I think at the end of the day, this is something that I hope we are included on and make sure that we back home, we don't forget this and the thousand bills that we pass every year. We should have this conversation, strategically speaking, in committee. I understand this is going to move forward, but I agree. And being a board member of the symphony, it is not intended like it used to be. We struggle to be able to get folks there, especially millennials. You know, when you have acts like Los Lobos, also Motley or Boyz II Men, you get us there. And so it's a matter it's a matter of strategy. But here's here's here's the thing. An organization that is barely covering the costs. The last thing you want and saying, oh, by the way, here's another hundred, $200,000. You got to come up with. Mm hmm. We as a city have to do a values check and to see what is it that we want in our city? What are the things that are sacred? And what are we willing to do for those things that are sacred? I think a symphony is one of those things that are sacred. A big city, a great city should have a symphony in our midst. We should be able to foster that. We should be able to fix this out if we can figure out how to pay for half a billion dollars to build a stadium. And we should figure out how we can actually do this to keep the symphony, to keep the fine arts in Denver. And I think there's a different way. There's a lot of different ways we can go about it. But I hope I get my comments as I hope can. I hope our colleagues that we can bring this discussion back into council so we can talk about the future of what we intend to have at the EPA, not just an was built there or what's being offered, but the organizations that actually give it the the the reason to go. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Kathryn Lopez. All right. Any other comments? 522 C None, Madam Secretary. Rubio?
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 5: Gilmore, I Cashman know. Can each Lopez.
Speaker 6: Pass.
Speaker 5: New Ortega?
Speaker 9: A reluctant AI.
Speaker 5: Sussman. AI Black AI Brooks. AI Clerk AI Espinosa. AI Lopez.
Speaker 6: AI.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I got him. Madam Secretary, please, cause very nice results.
Speaker 5: 11 eyes, two face.
Speaker 3: Nice to face. 522 has been ordered published. All right, we are on to the next one. Should be the first bill for introduction, Madam Secretary. Should be 553, if I'm not mistaken. You got it. All right. Flynn Sussman anew, I imagine. What do you want to call this off? Your vote is that I look left. Is this for a vote? Comment or question? Yes. Vote. That's what I thought. All right, Councilman Flynn, we will order 553 ordered published.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that constable 553 be ordered. Published.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Just about everybody wants to speak. All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. As we've said in the various committee meetings we've had on this, I believe that this program, that the way it's been structured, it's really well structured. I like how it works. The only thing that I do not like about it is I believe it's pulling up to the wrong fuel pump. I don't believe that municipal sales tax is the proper vehicle for fighting for funding this system. I believe that other avenues could have been looked at or should have been looked at or ought to be preferred over over municipal sales tax, which is the most regressive form of tax. And and it also is, I believe, beyond the role of of the municipal government, if I could put .08 percent sales tax on the ballot right now, I have sidewalks and streets in my district and I have other needs in my district. We need we have long police response times in my district that need to be brought down. There are a lot of other municipal needs in our core mission that I would put ahead of this, and I would encourage that perhaps DPS to look again at the funding this through through a mill levy, through DPS rather than through
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Amendatory Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Symphony Association, for offices used by the Colorado Symphony Association.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Extends a lease agreement with the Colorado Symphony Association by fifteen months to 12-31-16 to occupy 1245 Champa Street and raises rent from one dollar annually to $5,000 per month plus reimbursement of operating expenses (FINAN-201311017-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-28-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172015_15-0553
|
Speaker 8: We need we have long police response times in my district that need to be brought down. There are a lot of other municipal needs in our core mission that I would put ahead of this, and I would encourage that perhaps DPS to look again at the funding this through through a mill levy, through DPS rather than through sales tax. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman, you're up.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I have the highest regard for the group that asked me to be a member to look at this, and particularly thought it was admirable that you invited me to come when you knew that I probably would have some disagreements with you. And I understand the serious need for our citizens to have real access to college. That's a very worthy goal. But City Council government is quite removed from education. Government in our state. City Council has no jurisdiction over any educational institution. It's a state's jurisdiction. Improvements in education are the responsibility of the state. They are the ones that should make reform. Like Councilman Flynn, I understand, too, the city has enormous obligations for roads, drainage, safety, housing, and I am uncomfortable asking taxpayers to support something that has never been in our purview and when we have so many other operational and infrastructure needs. But my most serious concern here is that in this initiative, the colleges have no responsibility nor accountability for the moneys they will receive from taxpayers. Even their responsibility for student support is going to be removed for those students and given to nonprofits. Colleges have no responsibility to account for why tuition is so high or to control them during the life of this initiative. The only other economic sector whose costs have risen way beyond inflation for unclear reasons is health care. And college tuition has risen faster and higher than health care. Additionally, our public colleges have poor retention and completion rates. I don't think any of our public Colorado colleges have better than a 50% retention rate. Many are lower. They are not required to improve these either in this initiative. And indeed, this initiative removes that responsibility from the college and again, gives it to the outside nonprofits. So are we just fueling the problem? When I have asked the proponents why there are no requirements or expectations for the colleges receiving these funds. The answer has been we have no jurisdiction over the colleges. Exactly. Retention and completion rates are affected by many things cost to the student, certainly lack of student support, a system that is difficult to access for the long term if you have a job, family or other responsibilities. Most people in higher ed today are 22 years and older. College colleges are organized best for the 18 to 21 year old, who has leisure time to attend classes on campus and who has a patron, their parent or the government. That's what colleges. Are organized to do the best. But this initiative cuts off students who are 25 years or older. We're just continuing the problem when most of the students in higher ed are over 20 or 22 and over. If. We pay tuition rates without any kind of bill. If we initiate the initiative, cut off students who are 25 years or older, if we pay tuition rates without any accountability on the part of the college for their performance and pay only for the younger student. We're tackling the wrong end of the problem with the wrong resources. So I will be voting no on referring this to the ballot. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Nu.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question for Mr. Broadwell. Just wanted the action we're taking tonight, as is we're voting to move this issue to the ballot. Right. We're not we're not approving this. To become a bill that's being implemented is really an action to go to the ballot for the voters to decide on this. Is that correct?
Speaker 10: David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. Well, the specific vote tonight is to order it published.
Speaker 6: And then an.
Speaker 10: Action would be taken next week to do as you just described, to send it on to the ballot by adopting the ordinance.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. Thank you. I thought someone assessed was very, very articulate what she was saying. And I've talked to many of our constituents about this issue, and I hear the pros and cons are the cons that this is really a state responsibility and almost forcing us to do this to support funds for our students and when the state does not take their responsibility is something is very troubling to a lot of my constituents and residents. And we're 47th of 50 in the nation that supports higher education, which I think is is just ridiculous and a travesty. We should be a greater to support our workforce here in our state and not just rely on our own workforce, educated workforce. It comes from out of state. In terms of priority, I think, Councilman Flynn. Mitch Well, we've got a lot of needs in our city. And I'm not saying this isn't a need for our students. We need to make sure we have an educated workforce. And so we've got to balance this with other needs that we have when it comes to infrastructure in our city. And I'm not sure if we vote yes for this, whether this will pressure the state whole if if a yes vote does occur, I hope it will pressure the state to say to the state, you need to take responsibility for higher education. We need to do something about that. The pros that I hear from, I hear a lot about education is the key to success. There's no question about higher education being able to promote success as well as we need an a state workforce development program. So I really appreciate that so much and especially difficult for me because I have a children's hospital management background and I've promoted the welfare and and health care of children all my life. And so I see this as a program that will help our students as well as to develop a workforce that will be successful for our city. So I think in light of what the question I asked David Broadwell, probably I'm going to vote yes for this just because I think our citizens need to decide on this. We need our citizens need to vote whether this is a priority, whether this is an important issue for our students. And I'll be voting yes tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Blake.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I think this is an innovative solution to a real problem. I'm supporting it. I share the same concerns that other people have voiced. But I'm an enthusiastic supporter of education because a college degree is the way out of poverty for many families. I just want to give our voters, like Councilman.
Speaker 9: Nugent.
Speaker 7: Said, the opportunity to have their voices heard. So I am voting yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: And I can honestly say I still don't know how I'm going to vote on this. I wait to see how my colleagues do simply because I am tore whether to advances for a ballot measure and let everybody decide on something and the potential to tax everybody and only support a few. I mean, that's sort of what we do a lot in city government from time to time. But the portability is the issue. When we're investing tax dollars, I want it to go into infrastructure. I want that to go into things that can benefit a large cross-section of this city for a very long and permanent time. You know, we talk about I mean, I just shared this, too, yesterday. When we talk about Denver moves this this this tax would actually if we applied it to Denver moves and I don't know that we could if we structured a bill that way could pay for all that bike infrastructure that handles a cross section of the population here. This measure only touches about 6/10 of the population of Denver on a per annum, per annum, per annum basis. And and it's and it's not just, you know, it is needs based, but it actually then extends beyond where the federal programs already go. And so it sort of it doesn't comport with me very well that we tax everybody to then support a few that may or may not hit the federal government thresholds for need. So I don't know if I want to see this next week or not, but I'll I'll. I'll vote soon enough. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Like a lot of my colleagues, I've received some notes recently of concern about this proposal, that it's not the opinions being expressed, that it perhaps it's not the purview of city government, that education is a state responsibility. I agree that state must take the lead in funding education. But sadly, the efforts that have been coming from the Capitol leave us, as has been said, ranked 47th in higher ed. And I think we're somewhere the same way with K through 12. So the question is, do we stick to those guns that this is a state responsibility or do we act in some sort of measured way to try to make some difference? Denver has been a groundbreaker with the funding of the Denver Preschool Program. Should we act in a similar way here? There are no questions that we have many civic needs that cry out for funding our charge and our challenge is to prioritize those needs. We have roads and bridges and sewer lines and all manner of infrastructure in disrepair. We have a number of big dollar projects that are going to be coming before us, and we have a future generation that is being pushed farther and farther away from college education by continued skyrocketing costs. So I sit here tonight, like so many, trying to weigh those priorities and trying to weigh the questions on many minds. But one thing to me that is not in question is the fact that someone needs to educate our children where, as has been said, we're not voting tonight to pass a tax increase. We are voting to give Denver residents a chance to debate this critical issue, to engage our broad community in what I think is an invaluable dialog on our civic priorities. I think what we have here is a real moment in time opportunity that I hope we don't waste. I'm not near ready to say, bring on the tax, but I'm more than ready to say bring on the debate. So I will vote tonight to move this forward to the next step.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I do believe that action needs to be taken on that state level. I think universities and colleges public I if there was a way to do private a be all about it to lower steps need to be taken to lower tuition. Tuition is and the cost of tuition is the primary blockade for students being able to have a diploma on their wall to hang on their parents wall and for us to be able to move forward as a city. It's great if you're a valedictorian or if you had a 4.0 or throughout high school, got your scholarship full ride. That's awesome. I wasn't one of those students. I think I barely clung on to a31 dipped in maybe a2827. I barely made it in in college. It walked into a room bigger than this. 500 people don't look nothing like me. Don't understand where I come from. I felt completely alienated. I couldn't afford to go. I was an academic. Not academic. I'm sorry. It's clear the record on that one. Financial aid, probation almost every semester. I struggled. I had bills sent to my house all the time. I worked three jobs just so I can have that degree that hangs on this wall right across the way. Bachelor's degree from C.U. Denver. I struggled to make that happen. It took me five and a half years on my own to put that diploma on my wall. I'd like to think. That that diploma has helped not just me, but help my neighborhood. Taught me some lessons and how to give back. I think that's an added plus to the neighborhood. And whether you're a council person or a or a teacher or a psychologist or a philosopher or or a biochemist. Folks stay here. People just don't. People don't just leave Denver. Folks stay here when they're done. We have to make sure we're using every tool in the box to give these kids a shot. Let him earn it. And that's from what I understand. This isn't some handout. They have to earn this. Let them prove themselves worthy. And not just the 4.0 for 4.5 and 5.2 students, but those to name those three all and those 1.0 that if they if they had something if they had a beacon of light that they can look at and say, I can achieve that. I can do this. Just let me prove myself. Let me get. I just want a key to open this door. The right key. And we help them get that key. I think Denver is going to be a much better place. And if there's one thing I have known in the last eight years and was elected official, if there's something that we should be investing in, it's education. Because I'm tired of people calling my office thinking not not understanding what we do. Not understanding the role they play. And it's basic civics. I'm tired of watching stuff on the news and watching talking heads debate about basic civics. I don't even teach anymore. I'm tired of that. It gives us a bad name as public servants. It gives our constituencies in our communities such a bad name. I would be absolutely down. Councilman Flynn, you are talking. You were singing my song. Said we should raise a little tax here for sidewalks. I'd be all for that. Pitch out, brother. I would be the first vote on that. There's a lot of things that I would tack on to this, but let's. Let's do it one at a time. Education is the key. I know it's overused, but it is the key for a lot of folks. I look at a neighborhood like Valverde and less than less than 25% of the population at one point in that neighborhood had less than a high school diploma. That is not acceptable. And there are a lot of people out there that if they just had the opportunity, the cash, the money, the ability to get to cash in on that acceptance letter, they would. And not just the first year, but the third, fourth and maybe fifth. And beyond, and that's the little lever that we need to push it. We're not approving this tonight. We're asking that it gets published so that the voters can decide for themselves. And some of those voters are the very constituencies that we talk about, but they don't show up on the voting polls because they're only 17 and 16 years old. Right. So let's let's put this on the ballot and let's let Denver decide. I do support this all the way through, but let's at least give it a shot and ask our state to giddy up and start enacting some kind of reform on tuition here in this in this state. So I'm sorry, I'm getting more passionate about this.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. You're up.
Speaker 9: Mr. President, when this came to committee, I requested a public hearing, and I don't see anything in our agenda that reflects that. We were either supposed to have it tonight or that we're having it on public on final. So. So, can you clarify if true, is anything to still happen.
Speaker 3: If a councilmember requests a courtesy public hearing? I don't imagine there's going to be any against it and we'll have it for second reading.
Speaker 9: Okay. Well, I requested it when it came to committee, so I was surprised that we're having this conversation without having had input from from folks on the issue. So I want to make that request again. I think it is important for us to hear from the public on this issue. I do believe this is an important issue for us to be talking about because we want to ensure that we have an educated workforce in this city, particularly as we attract more and more businesses. And the cost of living in the city is getting more and more expensive for especially our young people to be able to afford to live here. And if they're not educated, they're certainly not going to be able to stay here. So I appreciate the work that's been done by the folks who are part of the committee. I remember when this was talked about last year, my suggestion was you need to go back to the drawing board. You need to have a broader community conversation about this issue and ensure that other organizations are brought under the tent to be part of this overall effort. And that, in fact, happened. So I appreciate those efforts. I also think it's very important that Denver Public Schools hears the message that we want them to ensure that young people who want to go to college are ready. We have a lot of young people that go to college and have to take remedial classes. They should not have to be spending money on remedial classes when they're supposed to be getting that education in our public education system. And I've heard parents who've talked to me and other property owners say we shouldn't be educating them twice to take some of the same classes they should be taking, getting educated for in high school. So I think that's an important part of the conversation. I agree. This is giving the voters the opportunity to decide if this is something they want to agree to support financially through a tax increase. And so I always believe that it is important to give the voters that chance to make the decision. So I will be voting for this tonight and look forward to hearing from folks who have worked on this issue. I know we had a couple of very articulate young people that came to committee when we had the conversation in committee about this. And, you know, we got to hear how challenging it is and how important the scholarship funds that are out there were to them being able to go on to college and to stay in college. You know, some people may get a scholarship to assist them to, you know, go that first year, but it's that ongoing support that becomes really critical to ensuring that they're successful in reaching that goal of graduating and getting that degree. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Councilman Herman, Council President Herman, thank you for bringing this forward.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega and four members of council. If there are no objections, we will have a courtesy. When our public hearing on 553 and assuming this is ordered published Monday, August 24th. Councilwoman Gilmore, you're up.
Speaker 9: Thank you, President Herndon. I have spent almost 20 years in my professional capacity as the Executive Director prior to this honor of serving on city council with a local based nonprofit, making sure that our young people who are in elementary and middle school.
Speaker 7: Think about.
Speaker 9: College as a next step in life. And those students that I've worked with over the last almost 20 years, primarily African-American and Latino students and families, many of them the first generation, as I am a first generation Latina college graduate. And so I understand their fear and their issues and their despair sometimes around looking at college as a viable next option. Really, higher education is not accessible to every student for many different reasons. But to level the playing field where a student, when they go off to college and you're so excited that they one got into college , will one you're excited they graduated from.
Speaker 7: High school.
Speaker 9: Too, that they got into college, and three, that they're going to be expanding on this next grand and adventure in their life. And then come the holiday break in December and they come home and they tell you, I have to drop out, I've got to quit. And you're like, I've worked with you since you were in fifth grade. What are you talking about? This was your dream. I want to be there to support you. Well, I just got the bill, and I don't have scholarships. I have used up all of my other funding. I'm going to have to quit. And then you scramble and you work to find work, study for them. You try to find different avenues, any avenue possible for them to stay in school. And it's not a reality for so many of our students. And so really, the investment in the future of our great city is our people. And that investment, I think, is very important. And to allow the voters to have their true voice heard, having this, you know, on the ballot, that there can be that grand debate and that we really do hear the voice of our constituents and voters and what they're feeling on this and that education really becomes a freedom, freedom in life for so many people that cannot be taken away. And I will be supporting this measure and I look forward to a robust conversation about it. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Canete, Europe.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Before I get into my comments, I did just have a question. I don't. Mr. Bravo, do you have a copy of the ordinance in front of you? Can we get you one? The question I have is, you know. There's a question about whether this is enough to make a difference. Right. So it's a significant revenue stream. It's taking a resource that could be used for other priorities. And that's a global question. But then to do that, is it enough per student to actually make a difference? And so I have read and reread this bill, and I see repeatedly on pages nine, ten and 11 a reference to $4,000 per student. Nowhere in the language of the bill do I see per student per year. But the proponents continually tell me that it is a $4,000 a year commitment. And so I just want to clarify whether this bill is drafted accurately. And if so, what am I missing that allows it to be per year? Because I, I question the value of $1,000 a year to a student given what higher education costs.
Speaker 10: I would beg your indulgence on this one, because I haven't been that close to the drafting of the negotiation of the ordinance. Dan Slattery is the attorney in our office who has. So if we could defer that until next week, if assuming it's going to be ordered published, we can get you a definitive answer from him. He will be back next week and he can help with that kind of detailed question.
Speaker 7: I probably will need that answer. I will just go to the merits, though, real quickly, because I don't want to dodge them. I share many of the concerns that have been shared by my colleagues about the appropriateness of this as a not a priority, but as the priority right now from this revenue stream for the city. And I worry about the downstream impacts. In one hand, I hear my colleagues who say, go ahead and send it to the ballot, because if the voters decide they want to do it, then, hey, that's the will of the people. In my opinion, the way to do that would have been to petition to the ballot. They're here before us at council because they want a statement from us that this is the right thing to do. And here's my fear. The voters decide to do this. And then we have a yearlong transportation commission and we decide the only way that we can address the infrastructure that our residents are demanding is a sales tax. And they say, oh, but you just came to us last year for that other thing. And, you know, the proponents in this case are so well-intentioned and they have a very righteous cause. And I'm not here with any quibble with the value of education, the disparities we're trying to overcome economically. I was a kid who went to school on scholarships and three and five jobs. And so I get the value of of these kinds of resources. But no one can tell me that our voters are going to be okay with the next thing that we need to bring them. That may be an immediate and direct priority of the city. This is a priority, but it may not be the most immediate and direct. And I, I can't predict. So so I have concerns. I'm not sure that the answer to this question. I weigh those concerns against the merits of the bill, which I think is, you know, the most we can do in this job is try to to take our gut reaction and set it aside and then think more about the facts. So that's what I'm trying to do. So on that fact side, I want to understand better is this enough money to make a difference? And if it's per year or not, makes a difference? I have heartburn over the age. The fact that we're cutting off, you know, older adults, we know a lot of disconnected youth, take time to find their way to college and this bill leaves them behind. So, you know, if we're there on the merits, then I'm struggling with leaving those older, young adults behind. And third, I'm struggling with sending the money out of Denver. You know, the Chicago example that was shown to me was for Chicago universities. I really did appreciate the data. Thank you again to the to the to the community, folks who got me the stats that many of our, you know, Denver students go to colleges in other parts of the state and they come back but but not all of them. And so every you know, everything that makes this harder makes it a tougher case to say it's worth the investment, it's worth the risk that we are limiting a future revenue stream we may need for another purpose. So I can't unfortunately just weigh this on its merits of whether it's good or not. I have to weigh it on how it may affect future things, and I have to weigh in on whether it's a good enough, you know, outcome. And so those are the three areas I'm struggling with, and I'll wait to hear the response on the drafting till next week. And I'm sorry, I was texting with folks over the weekend trying to get resolved. And I apologize for not doing that in time for this vote, but I promise I'll make a commitment next week, not trying to dodge it. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. I won't go to Councilman Brooks because he has not had the opportunity to speak. Then we'll double back to the council members that are in Spokane. Catherine Brooks are.
Speaker 0: Up. Yeah, this is a this is for order for publication. Typically, I wouldn't make remarks, but unfortunately I'm not going to be here next week. And so I wanted to just share a couple remarks. You know, I was a Denver preschool program chair for reauthorization last year this time. And we had virtually no opposition and we had virtually no kind of attacks against the campaign. It was because of one reason it was data. The data that we showed from the previous ten years was enough to say this program is making an impact, because the conversation that we had was typical to this conversation in 2003, and for a matter of fact, this this deep failed twice before it made it. And so as I've been listening to the conversation and I've been taking in a ton of folks in my community questions, it's it's harkened me back to to Denver preschool program which is just an interesting correlation. I came to Colorado because I received a scholarship to the University of Colorado. I went to it from the University of Colorado. I can promise you, I'm from L.A. There's no reason I would be in Colorado unless I got a scholarship from the University of Colorado. Unfortunately, it was not because of academics. It was although my grades were okay. It was because of football. And when we were good and.
Speaker 6: In the nineties brothers.
Speaker 0: You know, I think about what that scholarship did for me. I think about my grade point average coming in school was about a33. My grade point average leaving school was about a38. I think about my career path. I think about my purpose in life. I think about the individual that I became. And it's not all because of that scholarship, but it set me on a certain trajectory. So that's just my kind of personal experience in this. I think the policy debate that you have before you it's hard to do with councilwoman can just take your heart out, put your mind over here you know, because it's hard to say. Sidewalks and streets. And then we don't mention Kalief. And and John and and Greg, all who live in northeast Denver who would not have a shot at going to school. And so that conversation for me is a little tougher because, yes, we need sidewalks. And I've seen people when we put in their sidewalks, especially Long Brighton folks who have lived there for years, they are in tears. They're so excited. But there are individuals in our city today who will not get a chance to experience the opportunities of Denver because they won't be educated. And that sticks with me. Iran is a center for urban leadership where we raised over $1,000,000 a year just for a small group of young people. And the question always from our funders was, is this enough? And so, too, the niche argument is, is this going to be a large enough investment? I actually think you I think you got to start smaller to prove that it's effective is actually my approach. Here's here's something else. You know, our charge, our authority here at the city in county Denver is to make sure that we are not outside the bounds of our charter rule and ensuring that this these funds will be used on local and municipal purposes. Well, here's a local and municipal purpose. Workforce development. Um. I have. I've been meeting with business owners, and I've been meeting with sector leaders. Health care, oil and gas, tech industry construction folks who say they cannot get skilled workers. I mean, to the point to where they're really nervous and that land values are high, wages are stagnant, and so folks aren't even coming to here. So we can't recruit them in. We have to start getting them homegrown grown. And so I'm nervous about our workforce development. I do not believe that we do a great job connecting the next generation to our high industry, next sector leaders. And so I'm concerned about that. But more than anything, whether I'm for this or against this, I feel like the. Making sure that this is in line with our charter responsibilities. Seeing that the city attorney's office and those who know David Braswell does not let anything get past him that will not to ensure that we are protected, that legally we are protected in this and this. Ensuring that this is a local or municipal purpose is a broad stroke. But I do believe because we've done it with a Denver preschool program and we've shown that it works, that we have some ground to stand on. So I will be supporting this, going to the ballot, and I'll be looking forward to kind of a healthy debate with a neighbors healthy debate with folks within our community and within my colleagues. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: And Cameron Brooks. All right. Starting back at the top. Councilman Espinosa, you're up.
Speaker 0: I was really just going to remind people that there's an alternative. There is a petition process. This can be initiated by this ordinance can be initiated through through petition, which is pretty easier. I mean, much easier this time around because of the low turnout in the last mayoral election. So that threshold for petitioning on the onto the ballot is far easier to to capture. And so the nice thing about petitioning is that then, you know, you have some sort of popular support, at least among 6 to 8000 residents behind your bill rather than 13 of us up on the board. I mean, on the council. And so that's there's another avenue. This is not the end if it gets voted to not proceed. That said, because of the comments, I do want to point out the fact that this is largely a needs based proposal. However, if you look at where the needs these the nonprofits that are going to benefit from this program are already running need space proposals, which overwhelmingly those those scholarships go to the northeast, in northwest, in southwest quadrants of the city. So to sort of pull at my heartstrings and say these these these areas don't seat received benefit. Actually, those areas are the ones that precisely do receive benefit today. This program expands that network to actually go outside of those really intensely need based areas. And that needs to be part of the discussion going forward. The portability, like I said before, like my colleague's story here, speaks right to what my major concern, if this were a preschool issue, everyone knows that there's a huge benefit for early childhood education that pays huge dividends for every dollar spent and that those families will persist in Denver for some time with those programs for year after year after year. This is for college. I mean, high school kids to go anywhere in the state, get that degree and then not necessarily return that investment to Denver. There is. And so that's the concern. And that's why it's sort of a net outflow of cash. I mean, if there was some sort of requirement that they spend five years like the Army, four years working in Denver, earning a head tax, then we would have that assurance that this money wasn't just going to benefit a few people and going out of state indefinitely. So there's a there are mechanisms to move this forward outside of this this this council. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I'm going to drop down to Councilman Clark, who has not had the opportunity to speak yet. Councilman Clark, you're up.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I think I want to commend all my colleagues for having a great debate over this. And that's part of what I'm looking forward to as I look forward to supporting this, that we have this debate city wide. So many things have been said that I agree with. And I'm just going to so I'm going to try and be quick to go through a few and touch on a few other points. As has been said, we fund education in the state at the bottom of the list as state as across the country, not just higher education, but K-12 education. In my estimation, we are feeling our kids were failing. The kids that grow up here, we are one of the most highly educated cities in the country. And it's not because we're we're doing a good job with the kids who grow up here. It's because we're really good at importing people and highly educated people. And I think it's time to have a conversation about what we all want as a community for the kids that are are being raised here. The other thing that I'll point out is I do think that some other people have talked about other things that we could use additional funding for. And I think that there would be broad based support as as others have mentioned, for some of these other things. But we're not debating this or something else today. What we're debating is, is this a good idea? And there is no crystal ball that we can look at at what our future tax needs are going to be or what the people of Denver will decide they are willing and wanting to take on as a tax burden. A good idea should be a good idea or a bad idea based on its merit, not what we might need down the future that's not on the board. And I feel like so I feel strongly that we should look at this. Independent of what we might need in the future or what we think that tax base might be. I do believe that we're not doing enough at the other levels of government at the state to fund higher education. But if if no one will act outside of this body and there is something that we can do, then I think that it's time that we take that conversation to the voters, because I think there are a lot of people out there who are frustrated, who don't want to live in this great city that they love so much about and know that they're they're raising their kids where we we failed to fund education. And so if those leaders at those levels fail to act and we can't act, then I believe that we should and we should allow the voters really to be the ones who take that action or decide that that's not what we want. And I think that's really what this comes down to. For less than a penny on $10, we get to have a conversation about what kind of community do we want, not what kind of community do these 13 people want, but what kind of community do we want as citizens of Denver? And I believe that any investment in our kids, as others have said, will pay back multiple times. So I will be voting to move this on and support it. I also just want to take 1/2 to say one other thing. I did grow up in this town and I'm a DPS graduate and DPS prepared me in a way that I have never seen an obstacle that I couldn't overcome. And I think that often the Denver public schools, which are not truly a part of this debate but were brought in, are thrown under the bus. We fund the Denver public schools. We fund K-12 education, one of the worst, worst in the country. And then we expect them to do everything. And I think that I just want to stand up here and say, I believe in our public schools. I believe that we should be funding them better. And I believe that we need to stop saying, hey, you need to prepare kids, because I was completely prepared. My kids are excelling as children in the Denver public schools because they're ready to learn. And as a community, we have to choose to lift every kid up so that they're ready for what DPS can do for them and stop expecting DPS to solve every problem and get kids through all of that and get ready for college. That has to be a bigger conversation than just the Denver Public Schools, because I think that the Denver Public Schools are doing great things and are preparing kids who are ready. And as a community, we need to help the Denver Public Schools lift all kids up. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to bring some numbers forward. You look at the graduation rate and this mine, it is a few years old already, but I think the census numbers are persons age 25 plus with college degrees. Associates are better was hovering about 40% in this city. Let's talk about some of those communities where something like this would be a huge impact. And some of those numbers and and this is I did this I put these numbers together a while back. So the sum of the old council district lines. But in math, Moorpark, that's 12%. In Barnum, that's 8% in Barnum. Worse, that's 9% in Mali. That's 13% in a Westwood, that's only 6%. In Ruby Hill, it's 9%. In Valverde, that's 5%. And in Villa Park, it's only 7%. There is a huge gap. And you look at the poverty numbers and each one of those neighborhoods and it's drastically higher than any than than the city average. Right. It is definitely a huge gap that we have to make up. And these are our constituents. And we invest dollars public dollars in Headstart students preschool. Who's to say they're not going to leave Denver when they become of age? We're going to be investing all this, all this, all these resources in Headstart students. And then their found they can pick up whenever they want and leave Denver. We're not making them stay. We just believe in their future, no matter where it is. Right. And I think we have to offer the same respect to the ones that are already here and in college, going into college with the aspirations. To be educated. Think critically, because that's why we get paid and say ba, ba, ba or higher. Right. That's why they get make $1,000,000 more than someone with just a high school diploma in their career. And that's why that diploma means something, because it doesn't mean that you went to a university and spent all this cash and did your finals and all this other stuff. Didn't mean that you joined a frat or anything like that and had fun in college. It that diploma means that you can think critically that you know how to ask questions because that's what this is all about. Is that you think critically, you can ask questions, and that's what makes it so valuable. And that's what we want. It's not necessarily just about the workforce is it's it's that educated being those folks in our communities who can who who refuse to be fooled. And so those are the numbers that we have, the bridge. And I tell you what, you look at a map of where the sidewalks are missing, same communities. You look at a map of where there's the least amount of park space in the city, same communities. You look at a map pretty much of anything that we do as a as a as a municipal government. It's the same story. The kids in these communities are the most challenged. They have the they have the largest barriers against them. Whether it be sidewalks street paved. Dog bites in a neighborhood. Crime rates. It's the same story. And for eight years, I've studied these maps on the southwest side of Denver, on the east side of Denver, where these students are, where where they're struggling the most. They're struggling not just in education, but all across the board. Here's the one thing. Education makes the difference. Education is that tide that raises all those ships and asks all those questions and to hold all 13 of us accountable for where those sidewalks are going to go. That's why I'm joining for this tonight. I'd like to put it on the ballot. It's not perfect, but it is a start. And I appreciate what Councilman Clark said. It's not an either war. It's an end. This is an end, and we should be prepared to start asking. Those questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: I just wanted to add some clarification when this issue came to committee. Councilwoman Canete stand, Slattery was there. He did indicate in the first year that the amount that is spelled out in the ordinance is what would be in place for that first year. But it is, in fact, subject to change. You know, if the body, the governance structure chooses to change it in subsequent years. So I just wanted to add that clarifying point. I will reserve the rest of my comments until after we have the public hearing. Next week, I think we're going to have another opportunity for each of us to make our comments and to weigh in further on this issue. But I think a couple of people have already said that education is the ultimate equalizer. And if we don't have educated young people in our community, they're some of the people that get left behind, and particularly when they do come from low income communities. And the money that would come from a tax, if the voters choose to approve it, would further leverage the money that is already raised by the scholarship organizations, meaning we'd have the opportunity to serve more young people in our community to be educated. So I think giving the voters that opportunity is important. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Rebecca.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, Councilman Espinosa took the words out of my mouth earlier. I wanted folks to remember that these students already are receiving scholarships, that this program augments that and allows it to expand to serve additional students. It's not like there are no students who are receiving scholarship assistance already. I believe that we are hitching this to the wrong vehicle, however, for its funding. Just to bolster the point I made earlier, we are acting as a pass through for this tax to the nonprofit that would be organized, and I see no reason why. Denver Public Schools, again, if it's just a pass through, why why it couldn't be established through Denver public schools rather than the municipal government. And that's my only point on it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman, New Year.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'm just troubled about this 4000, whether it's per year or what. I can't leave here without knowing a little bit. I wonder if Happy Hayes would come up and let us know what the intention of the committee was. Was this supposed to be 4000 per year or a fourth or 1000 per year? I'm just dying to know.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Members of council. It's very odd to be seen here, and so I'm.
Speaker 0: Relishing it if you bear with me for a moment.
Speaker 1: My name is Happy Haines.
Speaker 0: I co-chaired the task force, along with my colleague, Dr. Steve Jordan, who is here, and Barbara Grogan. So to the 4000. So the that number in the ordinance is a cap. So it is up to 4000 per year. Then to the point, Councilwoman Ortega, that you made about it could change. So so it's an up to 4000 for any student per year. But based on the number of students who might be served in any given year, the average number could change and the nonprofit would have the ability. So so for example, if the number of students that we serve in year three is dramatically higher than it was in year one, there might they might want to make an adjustment on the average award or scholarship reimbursement that is made. So that's the flexibility that the committee has. But the ordinance establishes and a a limit or a cap, which is the $4,000 per year.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So it is 4000 per year, not 1000 per year. And it sounds like the word is necessary that needs to be clarified.
Speaker 0: Yes, that's.
Speaker 6: Correct. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And thank you, Councilman New. Any other comments on 553? As everyone else has spoken. I have not had the opportunity. Why not? I have an email in front of me that I got today. Forbes Forbes magazine ranks Denver number one place for business and careers. And what's interesting about that is that it's a it's a great thing to be proud of. And we differ on several different things on this dais. But I think most of us would agree that we are not producing the workforce for these careers. And so people talk about this from an education standpoint. I look at this, as Councilman Brooks mentioned, from an economic development and a workforce development perspective as well, because what we're doing is we are importing the talent to fill these jobs. And I don't believe that is, one, sustainable. And two, I think, frankly, it marginalizes those that are born and raised here. And so we have the opportunity to do something that's truly groundbreaking. And I can understand some hesitancy because nobody else is doing this. But I think we have put together a thoughtful group of leaders from different industries and sectors that met for months to figure out a ways to to crack this nut. And I think it's worth the discussion at a public hearing. I think that's worth a discussion for a vote. And I second so many different comments that people made. But I would just simply close it with you. You can make investments in roads and streets, but the greatest investment, I believe, with the greatest return is an investment in a person. And that ability. And when you can change a person's lifetime, these changes can sincerely be generational. If you have the opportunity to send somebody to get a quality education to fill those jobs, that changes the course of their lifetime in those moving forward, that resources should not be the reason that somebody does not go to college. It should be their ability. But right now, too many students. I do a leadership program every summer. And I talk to my students Northeast Demolition or what's your fear about higher education and the cost of it? And certainly we can say it is the role of the state. But I believe economic development is a municipal issue. We have a responsibility to deal with it. And even if you want to go with the education argument, construction defects is not our purview. Several municipalities right now are trying to correct the construction defects issue because the state is unwilling to to move forward with it. So you have local municipalities. So even though I don't agree with that argument, there's an example that proves if the state or higher level of government is unwilling to take a position on it and it negatively impacts our city. Absolutely. We should move forward. All right. So you know the comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black eye. Brooks Clark. Espinosa. Yes. Flynn.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. I. Cashman. I can.
Speaker 7: See.
Speaker 5: Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Abstain.
Speaker 5: Mr. President, I.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results.
Speaker 5: Nine eyes, two nays, two abstentions.
Speaker 3: 99 eyes to nays, two abstentions. Five 4553 is ordered published. All right. That's been two hour and a half later. All right. We're in next 536. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like for us to do with this?
|
Bill
|
CB15-0553: Denver College Affordability Initiative a) Presentation. b) Fifteen (15) minutes of public comment on proposal. Two minutes per speaker and equal opportunity for opposing perspectives as determined by the Committee Chair. Individuals wishing to speak must sign up in the Council Conference room (3rd Floor City & County Building, Rm. 391) beginning 15 minutes prior to the Committee’s scheduled start time of 1:30 pm. Sign up ends at 1:15 pm. The order of speakers is determined by the Committee Chair. c) Discussion/Action.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Creates a fund to help young Denverites attend higher education and certificate programs. This bill must pass no later than August 31, 2015 to meet the deadlines for the November ballot. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-5-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172015_15-0541
|
Speaker 8: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council 541 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 8: Thank you. As I said last week on on first reading, I was employed at RTD and under the city's ethics code, I am abstaining from any even perfunctory matters, doing having to do with RTD for at least the six month period. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. See the comments, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Rocco Flynn.
Speaker 8: Abstain.
Speaker 5: Gilmore I Cashman.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 5: Can each Lopez I knew Ortega I Susman. Black eye Brooks. I. Clark, I also i. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting as a result.
Speaker 5: 12 Vice one abstention.
Speaker 3: 12 as one abstention. 541 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. I believe those all of them, we are now ready for the block votes, all of the bills for introduction, our order published. Councilman Flynn, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block? Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block five, eight, eight, 547 and 587.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Possession and Use Agreement and Improvement Agreement with the Regional Transportation District and the Western Stock Show Association.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves an agreement with the Regional Transportation District and the Western Stock Show Association for acquisition of real property interest necessary for the North Metro Corridor Project in Council District 9 (201522594). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-31-15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-29-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08102015_15-0522
|
Speaker 2: All right. We will put on the floor and then we'll go to comments. And I'll start with you, Councilman Flint and Councilwoman Candace. Will you please have 522 audio published?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 522 be ordered published.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. We'll need a second. Who got the second? Thank you. Councilman Flynn, if you want to do a motion to hold in committee and then I'll go to comments after that, if that's the direction I want to go. Go right ahead.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill five two to be held in committee to Monday, August 24th, 2015.
Speaker 2: That has been moved and seconded now. Time for comments, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I did not have the advantage of since I'm not on finance and services to be at the meeting where this was vetted at first. But I believe there's still some questions unanswered in my mind. Primarily, the question is why we are asking the Colorado Symphony, which is one of our struggling institutions, to go from paying essentially no rent to a dollar a year to $5,000 a month. When we do expect this building to be reimagined and perhaps repurposed and for them to be vacating the building at the end of 2017 anyway , to me, $75,000 I don't need from the Colorado Symphony in that period of time. That's just one more musician on the street. And I think we have enough of musicians on our streets right now. So I'd like it to go back to committee and bring the symphony folks in because they were not represented at the first committee meeting. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman, new.
Speaker 10: House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also agree with this, Councilman Flynn. I think those discussions in Finance Committee were really about the future development of this building and how the space is going to be used. And I thought it was a very good discussion and questions raised where we really didn't have the answer about the future planning of this building. So I think this will give us a little bit more time to understand how this building is going to be used, as well as the financial impact on the symphony as Councilman Flynn had brought up.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Ken each.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I felt the need just to chime in, because I originally had asked this to go to committee, I think, along with Councilwoman Ortega and I, I was uncomfortable with the fact the symphony was not there. But I you know, I did go ahead and with some consternation, move this out of committee. But so I'm not presuming that my my decision to allow this lease to go forward will change. But I do believe that given that we did not have the party there, I think it is appropriate to to revisit the discussion. And in part, I think the concerns that I raised in committee, I won't go into into total detail, but we're related not just to the Symphony's ability to pay and the long term implications of their financial ability to continue providing a beloved service to our our patrons in the city, but also to the fact that if and when they they were to vacate the floor pursuant to the lease, that it would likely be taken over in what would be the typical capital investment. So I guess I would just like to say that if we're going to hear this in committee, it would be helpful to know from the partnerships specifically as well what the expected investment they will be making will be in the floor so that we can keep track of what is being invested in this building that has an uncertain future because that is a concern. So let's add that to the discussion as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Leach. Councilman Flanders. Okay. If I go to a couple of councilmembers and ask what's great? Councilwoman Sassaman, you're up.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Mr. President. You know, Jeff Steinberg is in the audience, and I'd like to ask him if if such a postponement causes any other kind of issues with real estate transactions in the symphony? And is the symphony aware that this proposal is on the floor? Does it interfere with any of their possible plans? Just like that's a lot of questions. But sure, I would like you to give us that. Give us some background on this.
Speaker 0: I'm Jeff Steinberg. I'm director of real estate for the City. And I'll try and take them one at a time, as I remember. I mean, if I don't remember.
Speaker 3: I'm all right. You got the gist.
Speaker 0: All right. So as the lease sits today, it expires by its own terms on September 30th. And at that point, it requires the symphony to move out of the space. I've been working with Jerry Kern, who's president or CEO of the CSO, and as his lease was coming to a term, he reached out to me to see if there is a way that we could extend the term and that if it called for paying rent, that he was willing to do that, that it was a far better opportunity to remain in the space, not have to pay for moving relocation costs and enter into the marketplace to identify suitable lease space. So as we move forward, we ultimately came up with the $5,000 a month in rent, which was the same amount of rent that he was paying back in 2013 when they resided in Bettcher concert hall space. So that's why that number came about and he was comfortable with that number.
Speaker 3: And postponing it. Does he know that this was going to happen this evening and is that going to cause any heartburn to the symphony?
Speaker 0: Well, couple of things. Yes, he did know it was going to happen this evening. I mean, he and I have been talking about it since it went to committee mayor council and tonight to first reading the. Concern that I have is if it's postponed to the 24th, it would that essentially be first reading at that time if it were postponed to the 24th?
Speaker 3: I suspect so is the first reading tonight, isn't it. Yeah. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's just making sure that whatever is put into place and agreed upon can be executed, fully executed by the 30th of September. Otherwise, the terms of their lease would cause them to move out of the space. The existing lease that they are.
Speaker 3: Does this if it's postponed two weeks, does it give enough time for them to do this before the lease is up?
Speaker 0: Well, again, I'm not sure what the outcome of that meeting is. So in other words, the bill that is before council is to approve extending them that $5,000 a month. If there is a meeting at the 24th and the terms of the lease were changed then I would imagine that a new lease would have to be executed . I would imagine that somebody within the mayor's office or whoever would be sponsoring the change would have to sponsor it, create a new lease, and it would have to be sent out for execution or exchanged with the party that is going to enter into it, approved, and then come back through the council process. I don't I don't know if on the 24th, if the terms of the agreement are changed for essentially at first reading, or if somebody within the administration would have to make the decision as to whether or not they're going to agree to that or not.
Speaker 3: So it cuts it pretty tight, is what you're saying. And in especially if there's any changes or concerns. And as I understand it, the symphony was accepting of this lease. It's a lease they paid for in 2013. Same amount for the for the facility, right.
Speaker 0: Yeah, a different facility. But it was what they were paying back in 2013.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thanks very much.
Speaker 8: You're welcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I met this afternoon with Ginger White from arts and venues, and we talked a little bit about this. So we really have two issues here. One is the issue between the Colorado Symphony and their space in the building and their their current lease or the need to renegotiate the lease. And then the second is the use of this building and how it plays a role in the bigger picture planning that is going on with the performing arts complex, which I think is a bigger issue of concern, particularly if we allow further investment in this building. That might require the city deciding we need this building and we want to use it for a different purpose. And as we were told in committee when it came, we would have to buy out that lease and that would more than likely include some of the major investment and improvements that would be going into the building. So that's why I think it makes sense to send this back to committee so we can have a further discussion about the role that this plays in the bigger picture. And just as a side note, there are public hearings being scheduled. There's one this Wednesday, August 12th, and that will be, I don't know, the location, but you can go to a website called Deep AC Masterplan dot com. Denver Performing Arts Center Master Plan dot com. And they're taking public input from people who want to look at what's being proposed and be able to weigh in on the big picture. And so I think that is part of the concern that I expressed when we had the contract that came forward for the Denver Partnership. I think they're doing some incredible things in that building with the programs that they have brought forward. I've had an opportunity to tour the building and to look at some of the agencies that are being housed there and the work they're doing with start up businesses. I haven't been able to determine that any of those startup businesses are from the creative industries or the arts community. But this building has always played a vital role in the performing arts complex. And so I think it's why having this conversation that includes the symphony, but to really understand the big picture is important. So I'm going to be supporting this postponement tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Jeff So you said that this is more of a committee thing, but I just want to clarify that while this is going back to a 2013 rate, what was the 2014 rate? So we had from 2014, actually, it was towards the end of 2013 because it was a two year deal that was that they were paying no rent, but they were paying operating expenses. So somewhere between operating expenses and $5,000, what I heard was some concern about the component of the well, this sort of notion of of taking an arts program and charging them a rate. And you testified that they were okay with it, but we have yet to hear it directly from that agency. And so it would be nice to have them at the table essentially supporting what is being conveyed and also to hear whether somewhere between operating expenses and 5000 is actually some sort of compromise that would simply be a modification of the that line. Were there other items in that contract that also changed? It's an amendment to an existing lease that changes the lease rate. So it's just the rate. Yeah. Great.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right, Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to point out that it was mentioned earlier, which is why I chimed in that by postponing this to the 24th, we can we can still introduce it, pass it on introduction. And then the next Financial Services Committee meeting is the following morning. So it does keep it on track. It does not delay final adoption by the 31st, which is the 30 day deadline for this contract. Also, Geoff, my understanding is that the rent they were paying in Metro Hall was not 5000 was somewhat less than that. About 4300. And is it true if you know do you know if it's true that because of the financial situation, they in fact, were not paying that or were not current and rent was deferred or forgiven.
Speaker 0: As far as the 40 $300 versus 5000, the information that I received was 5000. They were not paying rent to our agency. They were paying it to artisan venues. And the reason that they were caused to move out of that space was for construction that was going on.
Speaker 8: Exactly. Yeah. Okay. So is there anyone here who does know whether that rent was deferred and whether it was actually paid? I just have a concern about the capacity of the of the symphony in the time they have remaining in that building to meet that obligation.
Speaker 4: I'm going to ask Mark Najarian from Arts and Venues to come up. But I will say that in order to be filed for the meeting tonight, the CSO had to sign the lease. So they have accepted it by hosting Natalie.
Speaker 8: I understand that.
Speaker 0: Classrooms. Landmark Nigerian Arts Venues, Venue Director at the Performing Arts Complex. The symphony did eventually get up and become current with us. There was a short period where we worked out a payment plan when they were office in in Bettcher concert hall. It was, if I recall correctly, was the 5000 or 60,000 per year. So this is the same amount. And when they did move out, they were current with us. Okay.
Speaker 8: That's a different figure than than I was told.
Speaker 9: Came from venue. Yes.
Speaker 8: And finally, my understanding is that they may be asked during this extended period to relocate, to move out of the third floor. Is that so? They would have to incur moving expenses as well and consolidate on the fourth floor.
Speaker 0: The current lease that's in place with the downtown Denver Event Center provides that they have option to that space, the third floor, because there was a specific date in which the symphony lease expired. So in order to allow for the symphony to continue in the building, they needed to consolidate to the fourth floor.
Speaker 8: Right. And they will do that. I mean, they've already exercised that well.
Speaker 0: I mean, they have signed the lease that says that they will consolidate to the fourth floor and they will pay $5,000 a month.
Speaker 8: And what is the annual rental that the downtown Denver partnership is paying for the rest of the building there?
Speaker 0: They are paying a dollar a year and they're paying operating expenses.
Speaker 8: Okay. They're paying a dollar a year? That's correct. All right. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Flynn clarified my question, which is that the amount is not the only change in the lease, that the space being occupied is also a change from the existing. And that was not when you had answer, Councilman Espinosa. You said only the amount is changing. So I just I think we're clear now. That is correct. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Cohen, each Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to respond to Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Flynn. Yes, I understand that there is there are enough days between the 24th and the end of the lease, but if there are significant changes that take a bit more time there, it's a tight schedule that it still might not make it. And I and I understand the concern that the symphony wasn't it committee or is not here this evening but that also means that we don't know whether they would want us to postpone it or not. They may be very pleased with it and hope that it continues forward. We don't know that answer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Sussman. All right. In the comments on 522. All right. We have before us the motion to re refer to committee to Monday, August 24th, seeking to committee until Monday, August 24th. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Flynn. I Gilmore. No Cashman.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 7: Can eat. Lopez I knew. Ortega Hi. Sussman No black eye. Clark, I. Espinosa, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you know the results.
Speaker 7: Ten Eyes. Two names.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes, two names. 522 has been. Move the committee until Monday, August 24th, 2015. All right. The next one, I believe, Madam Secretary, was 530. That was council members Flynn and new. Um let me first either either I'll start with Councilor Flynn did you want that on the floor or do you have a comment or question?
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I just had a question.
Speaker 2: All right. Just 1/2, Councilman. Did you want it to the floor? Do you have a comment in question? Just a comment. All right. Well, all right. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. As you may recall, at the mayor council meeting where we discussed this, I had inquired as to the the record of of response times in my district in southwest Denver. And other members may also be interested, but I would like to know if it's possible by next week, if we can get a breakdown
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Amendatory Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Symphony Association, for offices used by the Colorado Symphony Association.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Extends a lease agreement with the Colorado Symphony Association by fifteen months to 12-31-16 to occupy 1245 Champa Street and raises rent from one dollar annually to $5,000 per month plus reimbursement of operating expenses (FINAN-201311017-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-28-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08102015_15-0530
|
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. As you may recall, at the mayor council meeting where we discussed this, I had inquired as to the the record of of response times in my district in southwest Denver. And other members may also be interested, but I would like to know if it's possible by next week, if we can get a breakdown of the statistics that staff got us by council by at least by my council district. And also, this is a short extension. And when this contract comes up again next year to rebid, might the administration consider putting it out to bid by quadrants of the city so that we can have towers who can respond more quickly in southwest Denver? So my question was, can we have information broken down?
Speaker 2: All right. Here.
Speaker 4: We're going to have Melissa Baldwin from. Thank you for that.
Speaker 3: Good evening. We're still working on trying to break out our data by districts. The city agencies that use this don't keep data themselves. So we're relying on the vendor to try to break out all that data.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. And you had two categories and what these are overwhelming statistics. 15,000 tows last year, but 12,000 of those were impound tows. What were the other 3000, if you know.
Speaker 3: Those are city vehicle tows. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 10: Councilman knew I was also just concerned about the overall financial situation with the towing service and support. Councilman Flynn And just really like to get some information which I expressed the Mayor Council but the overall break even point of this program. So I appreciate that information.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you both. Any other comments or questions on 530? Scene nine. We have one more, I believe, Madam Secretary. 541. Councilman Flynn, would you like for us to do this?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like this put on the floor for a separate vote so that I can abstain.
Speaker 2: Certainly, Councilman can ask, would you please have 541 order published?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 541 be ordered published has.
Speaker 2: Been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Before my election, I was employed at RTD. Under the city's code of ethics. I am not taking any action on anything related to the regional transportation district for at least six months and will abstain.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Ferkam, Inc., d/b/a Extreme Towing and Recovery for citywide towing services.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Adds one year and $1.75 million to the current contract with Extreme Towing & Recovery (for a new end date of 7-31-16, 5 year term, and total contract of $8 million) for citywide towing services (201100630). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-31-15. The Committee approved filing this bill bu consent on 7-30-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08102015_15-0410
|
Speaker 2: Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become part of the record. The public hearing for Ford Counsel Bill Fortin is now open. May we have a staff report?
Speaker 11: Good evening, council president, members of city council. My name is Ryan Winter. Very glib with community planning and development to present a rezoning at 270 South Madison Street. That's application to 2015. i00033 from. 640 2grh3i sorry. 624. So what I'll do tonight first I will orient you to the subject site, will then walk through the existing context and an overview of the process that has led us to tonight's City Council. Public hearing will then go through the five rezoning criteria used to evaluate a rezoning that then determines the staff recommendation that you'll see before you. So here's the subject site. It is located in South Central Denver in Council District ten. It is within the Cherry Creek Statistical neighborhood. And to orient you to the site a bit, zooming in, you can see it's outlined here in yellow. It is one parcel north of the intersection of South Madison Street and East Alameda Avenue. Pulaski Park and the Gates Tennis Center are directly across the street. That's East Madison. And access to the Tree Cherry Creek Trail is available from Cherry Creek Drive. East Alameda Avenue directly to the south is served by four RTD bus routes. So the property is 6250 square feet and it is comprised of one assessor's parcel. It is currently occupied by a single family residential structure with a detached garage. The property owner is requesting a rezoning to redevelop the site under the RH three zone district standards and remove PDE 624. So the request before you today is to rezone from PD 624 to G RH three. And just a reminder that the approval of a rezoning is not the approval of a specific development proposal. And should the rezoning be approved tonight, development consistent with the grh3 zoned district would be allowed. Moving on to the request we are considering the grh3 zoned district tonight. It is within the general neighborhood context. It is a row house district and it permits buildings with a three storey maximum height. Of course, that is Article six in the Denver zoning code and will now walk through the existing context first to existing zoning. You can see our subject site is called out in yellow and it is surrounded by the g, rh3 zoned district. On two sides we see to the north and the east g are h three and various PDS throughout Cherry Creek East. We see the B four zone district to the south across Alameda. That is a former Chapter 59 zone district, as well as several flavors of the C Zone district. We see the OSA Zone District across East Alameda excuse me, East Madison at Pulaski Park. And the Cherry Creek Trail is zoned O.C.. So now moving on to the existing PDP 624. It was established in 2009 and permits to dwelling units includes a maximum height of two stories and that's 35 feet, as well as a maximum gross floor area of 5482 square feet. It also sets forth parking and setback standards, as well as a district plan and the district plan. There's an excerpt of it here. Included on this slide, I've outlined in Blue for you the permitted building footprint enabled by that PWD. And this is the building footprint that would have to be complied with for construction under par 624. PD 624 also includes detailed facade, facade elevations as well as materials, and it's really specific to very specific development contemplated under this Puddy dispute. 624 is an example as seen here as we've seen that many chapter former Chapter 59 Pdes are too restrictive often and too detailed, and are unable to adapt to the changing market and preference conditions that we see over time. Specifically, this PD was approved in 2009 and has not been developed under. And we also see specifically, I guess, the way to explain it is that for a development to want to build anything other than what is specified in this building footprint and these facade elevations, we must entertain a resounding like we are here tonight. So moving on to the Cranmer Park View plane, it applies to the subject site. Our site here is with the yellow star and view. Planes are intended to protect and preserve panoramic views of the mountains from various locations throughout the city. And of course, Cranmer Park originates in Cranmer Park specifies maximum view, maximum heights for all structures. And for this particular site, a maximum height of 146 to 148 feet would be permissible, of course, far exceeding the grade three maximum height of 30 feet. Now moving on to the existing land use, we can see our subject site is called out in light yellow, indicating that it is a single family residential structure to the north and the east we see rowhouse, duplex, multi-family as well as scattered single family sites. To the south, across Alameda, we see office and multifamily. And then to the west we see the open space at Pulaski Park. Moving on to the building form scale, this is a photo of the subject site. You can see that is a one storey single family structure. It features a curb and driveway access at the primary street and a narrow, attached sidewalk. So to orient you a bit to the building form and scale in the surrounding area. The photo that we see in the upper right hand corner is indicative of a three storey multi-unit structure on the same block face that would have been constructed under the former Chapter 59. In the lower right hand corner, we see the subject site just to the east. It is a row house development as well as some of the remaining single family residential in this sort of postwar context that we do see in Cherry Creek East, the photo in the lower left hand corner is a multi-family multi-story residential structure across Alameda Avenue. And then in the upper left hand corner, you can see Pulaski Park. And now to an overview of the process that's brought us here today. We notified RINO's and City Council members of receipt of application on April 7th. The notice of the Planning Board public hearing was sent to R.A. and City Council on May 19th, as well as notification signage posted on the property advertising of the Planning Board public hearing. On June 3rd, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning to City Council. And then on June 24th, the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee moved the bill to City Council for final consideration. Tonight, and notice of tonight's City Council public hearing has been sent to all R.A. and City Council on July 20th, as well as notification signage has been posted on the property. The following. Four registered neighborhood organizations have been notified throughout the process, and we have received communication from two of those registered neighborhood organizations. As of today, we received from the Denver Neighborhood Association R.A. position statement offering that the Denver Neighborhood Association did not take a vote on this particular issue. They generally don't involve themselves in such neighborhood specific matters, but did indicate support of the rezoning generally supporting rezonings of former Chapter 59 PDS into the Denver Zoning Code and I believe the G RH three was an appropriate sign district. Additionally, we received a letter of support from the Cherry Creek East Association stating that the R.A. did vote in support of the application. So now I will walk you through the five rezoning criteria used to evaluate a rezoning request, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. And three adopted plans will apply to the subject site Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver, which is our Integrated Land Use and transportation plan as well as the Cherry Creek Area Plan adopted in 2012. The first is comprehensive plan 2000 and KPD did find that the rezoning request is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2000, and we look to a number of different strategies to inform that determination, including environmental sustainability through the promotion of infill development, as well as encouraging opportunities for people to live where they work. The land use strategy again encourages quality infill development that is consistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the neighborhood strategy that recommends invest investing in neighborhoods through a range of housing types. Moving on to Blueprint Denver. Our subject site is called Out in the Yellow Box, and it just indicated that it is within an urban residential concept land use category where the plan recommends higher intensity, primarily residential uses and a variety of housing types, including single family townhouses, small multifamily and sometimes residential. We do find that the RH three zone district implements these land use recommendations through that variety of housing types consistent with the existing character. And we also find that our subject site is located within an area of stability. You can see there is an area change located to the south at Alameda indicated by that hatch and of course blueprint. Denver recommends in areas of stability, maintaining character while allowing some new development. And we do find that the G RH three zone district is consistent with that recommendation. Blueprint. Denver also includes a number of street classifications that inform the appropriate mix of land uses. South Madison Street is called out as an undesignated local, where it is more appropriate for local access rather than regional access. And East Alameda is called out as a mixed use arterial, and such an arterial would have a greater importance on regional traffic and distribution. We do find that the G, r, h three zone district is appropriate at this particular location for this on designated local street by allowing residential uses that are consistent with the existing context. And East Alameda Avenue and Cherry Creek North Drive are also identified as enhanced transit corridors, and these are corridors within the city that blueprint Denver recommends increasing transit ridership, improving service and efficiency. And this would primarily be achieved through a supportive mix of land uses. And we do find that the residential development that would be enabled by this RH three zone district would be able to take advantage of that transit corridor. Now moving on to the small area plan. This is the Cherry Creek Area plan adopted in 2012. So this is after Pwds 624 is approval in 2009. The Cherry Creek Area Plan sets forth framework strategies that will apply to all of Cherry Creek, as well as sub area strategies that apply to specific geographies. So our subject site called Out Here in Red again is reinforced as an area of stability where the Cherry Creek Area plan recommends maintaining a mix of low scale residential building forms and where infill development should reinforce pedestrian friendly qualities. Additionally, the the plan recommends respecting the existing character of stable residential neighborhoods. And we do find that the grh3 zone district is consistent with the strategy through enabling development that is consistent with the existing context and character. Moving on to the sub area strategies. Our subject site is located within the Cherry Creek East Sub area. It is called Out here in Red. And again, we see the same reinforcement of the concept from Blueprint Denver that the site is located within an urban residential area. The Cherry Creek Area Plan recommends continuing supporting a variety of housing types in this particular area, including low and mid-rise multifamily rowhouses, duplexes, single family and accessory dwelling units. And we do find that the application of G, r, h three does provide for this appropriate mix of land uses. The Cherry Creek Area Plan also recommends respecting the existing existing excuse me in character and scale of low resident low scale residential development within these residential areas. So this area called out here in pink specifically does have a maximum recommended building height of three stories. And we do find that since the RH three recommends construction of no higher than three stories, the application of this Stone district at the site is appropriate. And within the Cherry Creek Area plan, sub area strategy. We also find that the plan recommends rezoning pods, that these aging undeveloped pods there are nearly 100 of them within Cherry Creek East are typically unable to adapt and provide the flexibility needed to react to changing real estate market conditions. And of course, the plan recognizes that the only way to remove this pool is through a rezoning process. So we do see the recommendation to rezone pods that as the opportunities arise with new development or property owner interests , that we should seek an appropriate zone district to rezone into the Denver zoning code a request you see before you tonight. So based upon CPD's analysis, we do find that the request is consistent with adopted plans. And moving on to the second criteria. Uniformity of district regulations. We find that the application of g, r, h three at the subject's site will result in the uniform application of the Zone District throughout the city. We do also find that the application of G, r, h three at the Zone District at the subject site furthers the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted city plans. Moving on to the fourth criteria, that there be a justifying circumstance for the rezoning as stated in your application. The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character of the area. And as stated in your application, recent infill and redevelopment of the area is consistent with the grh3 zone district and also according to the application. 624 Site and facade design no longer reflects the property owners desired character. Additionally, CPD does fine to change conditions since the approval of PUD. 624 in 2009, including the approval of the Cherry Creek Area Plan in 2012. Setting forth a new vision for the area as well as the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code in 2010. Introducing G, r, h three as a zone district tool that would not have been available at the time of. 624 approval in 2009 to implement the Urban Residential Land Use recommendation. Now moving on to the fifth criteria consistency with neighborhood context. The general urban neighborhood context is described in the Denver zoning code as including a mix of residential uses and a variety of building forms embedded low scale residents, low scales, skinny commercial uses, as well as regular block patterns, a consistent street grid and detached sidewalks and the neighborhood context description in Article six actually calls out Cherry Creek East as an example of a prototypical general urban neighborhood context neighborhood. So we do find that it is appropriate to apply the grade three zone district to this prototypical general urban neighborhood context area. And finally moving on to his own district. Purpose and intent. The RH three zone district promotes and protects higher density residential neighborhoods within the general urban neighborhood context, and specifically the grh3 zone district is a multi-unit district, allowing urban house duplex and row house building forms and specifically row houses no taller than three stories. And we do find that the application of g r, s, r, h three at this subject site is consistent with these recommendations, as well as the recommendations that we have seen earlier in the presentation as represented by adopted plans. So based upon CPD's review of the criteria, we do find that the rezoning meets all five criteria and do recommend accordingly approval of application 2015 IE 00033 from PD 624 to grh3. And I'm available to answer any questions you may have as well as the applicant is here tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have one speaker today, Howard Kent. So, Mr. Kent, you can make your way up to the podium to begin your remarks.
Speaker 0: Hello. I'm Howard Canton. I represent the new owner of the property of an architect here in Denver. My office is located over Downing and 17th Street and I reside at 2463 South Primary Street here in Denver. The simplest way to explain what these pods are is they're a zoning married to a very specific design. The process was brought about because rezoning was so nebulous that designs were sold to communities. So that rezoning was allowed and then the person who did that would build something somewhat different and it made people very unhappy. So over time, particularly in the 1990 and early 2000s, the PDS and PBGC were developed with very specific design requirements . The exact look of the building materials, the height, the size of the windows, location of windows, all of that. How much coverage was completely mandated by that zoning, which was fine if that zoning was going to be enacted at that moment and that development happened. Remember, these pods were never built. And as market forces change, it changed or people's personal tastes changed. The PD might not have been what the person who owned the property wanted to build. In this case, a new owner has purchased the property, wants to build a townhouse similar in essence to the side by side townhouse that's in place, but with a different esthetic and different, different coverage. One of the good things about the Garage three is it's not allowing the lot fillers that you see around town. So we're actually going to end up with less coverage and less square footage in the new Grange three than would be allowed under the current PUD. The current PUD has about a 59% site coverage, whereas the grade three would allow a maximum of 50. The current PUD allows a 35 foot height, whereas the Grange three only allows 30 feet and the rear third of the lot can't be built in for habitable space. Whereas currently, as you could see from the original, the original PUD, there was a very small courtyard with the residents really pushing into the rear third of the lot. So any new development would allow for a backyard and less coverage. But there is an opportunity with a third story to do some roof deck, which allows you to have a nice view across Pulaski Park. So a lot of what this pud change to a Grange three is getting at is a different esthetic and a different opportunity for the new owner of the property. Are there any questions for me? We will.
Speaker 2: Do questions.
Speaker 0: After. Sorry, that's all I have.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. All right, councilmembers. That concludes our speakers. Now it's time for questions. Any questions of members of the council? Councilwoman Ortega, you're up.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Mr. King, can you tell me how many units then that allows you to get on the site to. Just to and under the pad. Did that allow two? Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you're up.
Speaker 0: And it should be noted that the two units might be restricted to maybe the 6250 that you have. However, this could be assembled with either of the two adjacent grade three properties and then fit what is called the garden court form. I actually have several questions for Ryan, if I could.
Speaker 7: It is still.
Speaker 0: So is the garden court form still allowed in the grade three?
Speaker 11: It is correct.
Speaker 0: Has that has the sort of garden court, the discrepancy between garden court form as shown and as permitted? Has that been cured yet.
Speaker 11: As shown as.
Speaker 0: Illustrated in the zoning code? There's a very specific graphic content of what a garden court form looks like, yet how it's manifested in the grade three today is very different than how it's portrayed. Okay. Has that been addressed?
Speaker 11: I'm afraid I'm not aware of that particular situation, but I can definitely follow up with you after seeing the.
Speaker 0: Reason why I bring this up is I listened to I watched the hearing, the committee hearing, and I'm actually going to pull this committee hearing and share it with my colleagues who weren't on council at the time. There was a very robust discussion about the fact that there's all these PDS, there's no project coming forward. This is just a straightforward rezoning. And I can tell you that the Cherry Creek that we know and love grew up in formed in that old zoning code, and all of these pods created what is desirable today. And to sort of blame the PDS as being the fault, I would argue, is what sort of preserved and created what is desirable today. The reason why I'm saying all that is you cited several plans, B 1.1, where it specifically said single family duplex and row homes. The graphics showed the row home, single family character. The The Cherry Creek adopted 2012 Cherry Creek adopted plan A again sited single family duplex and row homes. And then in your own slide note five talked about why grades three was appropriate because it allowed single family duplex and row homes, but you omitted garden court in the garden court form is a perpendicular townhome that is very different in character than a grade three. I mean, than a single family duplex or ten row home form, which all orient themselves towards the street. And so why this matters is an appropriate rezoning should have waived in order to respect the small area plans in place should have waived the garden court form from this proposal. I encourage CPD to look at an overlay that somehow addresses this discrepancy between what is desired and in the smaller plan versus what is allowed in the existing zoning. Why this all matters. Is. Page 14. The this is an area of stability. It is outside the area of change. And if you're going to justify modifying an area of stability by virtue of the fact that the area has changed around it. When by Design Blueprint Denver calls those areas of change, then you've opened up the area of stability to change because you're justifying it by the very change that the plan is desiring. So there's a big this there's there's sort of an incongruence between what the plans support, what the zoning allows, and what you guys are moving forward. I urge my colleagues to take tell this to vote no and to send this back to CPD for a modification that that modifies this and consistent with the smaller plans that are in place, because that grades three will in fact allow building forms a larger and in or in a different orientation and row house.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Great point. One of the get to the photos. Here we go. Images of the existing form and scale within the surrounding area here in the upper right hand corner. We do see a multi-family structure that was constructed under the former Chapter 59, and it does closely resemble the garden core concept. There are some units that do phase out towards the street, but there also are inward facing units on that courtyard. So we do believe that the G RH Three Zone District, with its inclusion of single family, duplex, garden court and indeed row house is consistent with this existing context. I do apologize. The exclusion of Garden Court was by no means intentional.
Speaker 0: But row houses wouldn't allow street facing garages.
Speaker 11: That is correct.
Speaker 0: You know, there's there's a character and an intent in the zone, in the small area plan, and there's a community input that drove that. And that's codified at least to whatever degree they can, because there's deliberate attempts to remove prescriptive language out of smaller plans. I think if we looked back at those discussions, we would find that the neighbors were actually calling for something far more prescriptive than what got written. And so I don't think that perpendicular townhomes and and curb cuts is probably the future that they all saw in there in that write up.
Speaker 11: We do see language also.
Speaker 2: I just was saying, Councilman, I want to I want to make sure that we say are these you kind of going in a comment period or any particular questions you want to ask? And I'll certainly afford after the question a little bit, definitely give you your your opportunity to comment on that.
Speaker 0: So does zero three the proposed zone district allow for forms other than some single family duplex in row homes that do not have to face? Well, it doesn't allow for other forms other than those three forms.
Speaker 11: It does. Correct. But I believe in the garden court form standard that a certain a number of units must indeed face onto the primary street.
Speaker 0: And does that allow occupied levels above three stories? Not not habitable space, but occupied levels above three stories.
Speaker 11: Occupied as in a rooftop space. I believe not occupy able space. I believe perhaps the applicant is more familiar with the zone district standards as he is designing the project. But I do not believe that third story does allow for Occupy able space.
Speaker 0: It does allow for the doghouse, you know, a limited square footage on the fourth story. That is.
Speaker 11: Not Occupy Wall space though.
Speaker 0: But the decks that they then that's why I said not habitable but occupy wall you can have mean occupy the rooftop.
Speaker 11: Yes. An individual could spend time on that rooftop. Correct. But it's not habitable space.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Any other questions on 410? Scene. Nonpublic hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilman New, you're up.
Speaker 10: You know, I respect my esteemed colleague there on his wonderful zoning knowledge. I do want to support this rezoning. I'm very familiar with Cherry Creek, which is a booming residential growth area. And this proposal fits along very well with that street. It's just a wonderful location, though, right across from Pulaski Park. What a beautiful, gorgeous park it is. And and I'm so glad that some of the older pads are being converted to much more modern residential homes. And I'm so familiar with the neighborhood association there. Talk to many of them and they're very, very supportive. And and so I do want to support this this rezoning tonight. I also think that Councilman Espinosa has a good point that we ought to be considering in the future and talking about how how this should be discussed further. So. But I don't think they should delay that as the rezoning tonight. I support this rezoning.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Do any other comments? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: I do have to respond in that my concern, Councilman new isn't there's a lot of very wonderful projects that can come about in this zoned district. And I have no doubt that this team is probably capable and ready to deliver that. However, I don't know that. I mean, I wish there was more public input on this process simply because this does allow something that is consequentially differing significantly, formally different than what was presented today as the way the by it I mean the existing fabric and the desirability. It actually allows far more intense development than what was portrayed. And that disconnect will always concern me. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. In the comments on 14. Scene nine. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 7: New Ortega Sussman. Black Clarke Espinosa. No. Flynn, I Gillmor. Cashman. Can each Lopez. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi. Madam Secretary, please. First of all, he announced the results.
Speaker 7: 11 eyes one night.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes one day for ten has been placed on fine consideration and does pass. All right. Our next one is for 24. Councilwoman, can we please put 424 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I move that council bill 424 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved to second. It has been moved in segment public hearing on 424 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Tim Watkins with the Community Planning Development here to present the zoning application 2014 nine over 90 for property at 5975 South Jackson Street. Property is located in central Denver in the Council District ten Cherry Creek neighborhood. Specifically in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. And here's kind of a overview of the property from the Google Earth View. And you can see that it's situated along Bayard Avenue between Burns Park, within easy walking distance of Burns Park to the east and also beyond excuse me, Polaski Park along Bayard Avenue to the west. Colorado Boulevard has high capacity transit running north and south, and also within easy walking distance is Alameda Avenue, where there is also significant amount of transit service available. Property is just under 19,000 square feet. And it's on the corner of Jackson Street and Bayard Avenue.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located 270 South Madison Street from PUD 624 to G-RH-3 in Council District 10. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located 270 South Madison Street from PUD 624 to G-RH-3 (General Urban,Row House, 3 stories) in Council District 10. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-24-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08102015_15-0424
|
Speaker 0: Colorado Boulevard has high capacity transit running north and south, and also within easy walking distance is Alameda Avenue, where there is also significant amount of transit service available. Property is just under 19,000 square feet. And it's on the corner of Jackson Street and Bayard Avenue. The property owners requesting to rezone from 512 also to three. And you're probably seeing a common theme tonight, same neighborhood rezoning from PD to the grade three zoned district. Property owner desires or the applicant desires greater flexibility to respond to housing demand that meets current needs and conditions. PD 512 allows for seven attached residences in two structures one four unit building and one three unit building. And the maximum height is three eight feet. I have additional details available if there should be any questions related to the. Beauty standards. The grh3 or general urban road house three storey maximum zone district promotes safe, active and pedestrian skilled residential development and reinforces desired patterns in existing residential neighborhoods. And those specifically are consistent, shallow front yard taper, building heights on the sides or the side street and side interior and the rear. 20% of the lot is limited to one story, while the front 80% of the lot is allowed up to three stories. Now look at the existing context and the surrounding zoning. You see numerous pwds as well as g rh three zoning surrounding the property and you'll see in the existing conditions that much of the housing today is built in that 2 to 3 storey. Townhouse or rowhouse building forms. Also looking at some of the regulatory. Controls that apply to the site would be a look at the Cranmer Park viewpoint. It's intended to protect and preserve a panoramic view of mountains from Cranmer Park. But the maximum height as it would control heights above 100 to 204 feet, and that's well above the 35 foot high maximum in grades three. So now let's look at the existing context, beginning with the land use. So you see the corner property today. It's uses single family. However, it is vacant couple of little single family structures that are no longer inhabited and you see surrounding. On all sides are multi-family structures. Here's a view of the site. The center you see to the north. Well, excuse me. This is. Yeah, just to the north, you see two, two, two and a half storey row homes or multi-family units to the east. Two storey multi units also to the south. And to the west, this would be two and a half story. Multi-unit structure. And then here's a view of the site itself. Looking West facing Jackson Street. Reasoning process to present to present includes outreach to the registered neighborhood organizations listed here. And receipt of application was received for this. Particular project on a rezoning request on March 6th, Planning Board public hearing met the requisite written notice and signposting requirements . And then written notice for the June 24th Neighborhood Planning Committee met the ten day written notice. The planning board hearing was held on June 3rd. There was a Cherry Creek East neighborhood representative that provided a letter of support and also spoke publicly. Supporting the rezoning and also encouraging sidewalks and tree laws which are required at the time of site plan review. Through the development services review process. And Planning Board. Voted unanimously to recommend approval this rezoning application. Now go through the Denver Code review criteria, which begins with consistency, with adopt plans. And Comprehensive Plan 2000 encourages conserving land by promoting infill development that is consistent with surrounding neighborhood character and that provides a range of housing types and prices. Blueprint Denver concept land use as urban residential, which is defined as higher density, primarily residential development and a mix of housing types. And it shows is an area of stability which recognizes the established character of an area, but also encourages or allows. For a. Small amount of investment, whether infill redevelopment to stabilize the character of the neighborhood. Also in Blueprint Denver, we find street classifications for Jackson Street, which is on designated local street, which these streets provide access to homes and circulation throughout the neighborhood and beyond. Avenue is a residential collector and collector. Streets provide access between neighborhoods and are pedestrian oriented with three long sidewalks and on street parking. Next we have the Cherry Creek Area Plan adopted in 2012. Its plan encourages maintaining existing character and a walkable environment. The land use that you see here on the left with the site highlighted with a star is urban residential, which is defined as supporting a variety of housing types, including low and mid-rise multi-family rowhouse, duplex, single family accessory, dwelling unit and garden apartments. The plan also suggests respecting the existing scale, which would be defined as low scale buildings in residential areas. And here we see the maximum building heights map on the right, showing a maximum of three stories for this particular site in the surrounding area. The Cherry Creek Area Plan also recommends rezoning properties to appropriate Denver zoning code districts. The next review criteria. Would be met through General Urban Rowhouse three storey zone district, which would apply uniformity of district regulations on the property consistent with. The Zone district throughout the city, and it would further public health, safety and welfare, primarily through implementation of recommendations in adopted plans. The justifying circumstance would be a change of changing condition of the property in the surrounding area. And specifically the area surrounding the site has evolved into a predominantly multi-unit development and the site condition. Is vacant land and buildings that are prepared for some investment and redevelopment. The fifth criteria would be consistency with neighborhood context and the purpose of the zone district and the intent of the Zone District. So general urban neighborhood context. Is to promote safe, active and pedestrian skilled residential districts in a variety of residential districts. And specifically the general urban road house. Three storey maximum district accommodates the urban house, duplex row house building forms and the garden court apartment. And this would. The Southern District would reinforce desired patterns in the existing neighborhood. Cipd finds that all review criteria have been met and we recommend approval in this application. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have one speaker today, kelly choppin. So I knew. I'm sorry. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Hi, I'm Kelly Chauvin. I'm here representing the owner of 59 through 75 South Jackson and living in Golden, Colorado. Councilman New asked me to come up and talk about the plans for the site. The owner is currently under contract with a local developer on the parcel. The developer's built several different projects, row homes and duplexes in the Cherry Creek East neighborhood. And so I can't say for sure exactly what that developer plans on building, but I do know it will be within the grade three design guidelines and specifications, and any new development on the site will be a drastic improvement over what's currently there and will for sure help improve the Cherry Creek East neighborhood. And that is why the Cherry Creek Base has given us their full support of this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from members of council. Guys. We're gonna take it.
Speaker 9: I did not hear Tim when you were talking. What? The amount of parking is that would be required for the seven units that are allowed on the site.
Speaker 0: 512 requires two spaces per unit or a total of 14.
Speaker 9: Okay. All right. And then on the design, sort of taking off with the questions that Councilman Espinosa was asking earlier. Will the. Design be allowed to have the parking where the driveway is off the street in the the unit, the drive, the parking is underneath the units and they face one another. We've seen a lot of those built in my neighborhood, and I'm just trying to get an understanding. I mean, I see samples of what some of the housing looks like that has been done throughout Cherry Creek. And it looks like most of the housing in Cherry Creek has the parking that's on the back, usually off the alley . But I'm not sure if. And I'm not sure this is the exact point that Councilman Espinosa was was trying to get at, but I think that would drastically change the character of this neighborhood if the parking was underneath the units and you drove into the center off the main street where, you know, they parked underneath.
Speaker 0: Okay. Just looking here at the rowhouse design standards and specifically under design elements. An attached garage is allowed may follow the detached garage building form side street side interior and rear setback so. I can't answer your question entirely. I can't. That's, I guess you.
Speaker 9: There's someone else in the audience who can. Would you please introduce yourself?
Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening. I'm Sarah Showalter, planner with Community Planning and Development. So depending the you know, how the parking is oriented and the units are oriented does vary depending on the building form that they chose to use, since there's a variety of building forms permitted in this zone district, but generally there that is an option of the sites large enough, there's not a there's not something that would specifically preclude that kind of setup, but it would probably be challenging on a lot of sites to do that design and meet some of the other design requirements, specifically if they use the row house form the requirement to have entrances for all of the units that face the primary street. So it'll be very challenging to meet that requirement and also have a design that you just described. So even though that is not specifically not allowed it, there are other design standards that would for that building form prevent that.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. And answering my question.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a detail. Be sure I understand. I thought you said the P.D. says two spaces per unit required. What would the new zoning require? Is there any the minimum requirement of the new zoning code or the current zone district for three is one space per unit. Okay. Minimum requirement. Good. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I just wanted to thank you for acknowledging that the garden court form is is also included in that, not deliberately admitting that. And so, yeah, to answer my colleague's question, it does depend on the physical nature of the site. The only way they actually can get those sort of back to back garages is if they have enough land area to have essentially two garden courts where they then can stick a driveway in between them. So.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions for 24? Scene nine public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, councilman. New.
Speaker 10: Yes. As the rezoning in their previously talked about, I'm in support of this rezoning. We I think from my discussion with the owner today I think the developers planning on building three duplexes. Not seven years, but six units. And so I think they hopefully should have more room to work with. So again, it's converting the PDS to more attractive homes that we're looking forward to in Cherry Creek East. And I think it's going to be a wonderful addition. And parking has been a big issue and all the Cherry Creek. Fortunately, a lot of the developers are building more than the minimum of one space per unit and I surely hope that the market conditions which will surely apply to these these town halls will probably dictate more than one space. So, you know, I do want to support this. I think it would be a good addition to Cherry Creek East Community and and look forward to this development.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Do any other comments for 24? Katherine Espinosa Yeah.
Speaker 0: I do think that it's it's just a it's a fundamental difference in, in, in economics. And I don't know how we address this, but I'm going to look forward to doing that, which is in your case, in your neighborhood, you have a demand for large enough units that sort of justify big duplexes on this on 18,000 square foot parcels. But in my neighborhood and that's going to be a rowhouse with a garden court and it's going to be essentially three blocks of eight or something like that. And that's what this zone district allows. So my perspective obviously comes from a less high dollar neighborhood, but it's fast approaching your neighborhood. So, yeah, so there's something about the economics that drives how, how dense these developments are from a. Occupant standard, but it's the same square footage. But that's where it gets really difficult is when you have two dwelling units or four dwelling units, you have less demands, as you do when you put eight units and 16 units or more on that same parcel. And there's something in that delta that it would be nice if we had the mechanisms and means to address. Because when you go from four and the parking associated with 4 to 8 and the number of visitors to 16 and the number of visitors that come along there, it creates different pressures in our communities and the zoning. So somehow is not real cognizant of that. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Just not a comment on really this particular development so much as piggybacking on Councilman Espinoza's thoughts on cleaning up our zoning codes and maybe being more descriptive. And it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have zoning accommodate structures, the size that we'll be building here, whether it's six, seven, five or whatever, and have one parking space per unit. So I'd love to see us start addressing a more sane set of parking requirements in Denver. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Any other comments for 24? Seen none. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 7: Roll Call New Ortega Assessment Black Clark High Flynn I Gilmore Cashman. I can ege Lopez. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Uh, Madam Secretary, you do not see Espinosa, but I see Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I was going to vote.
Speaker 7: You can change your vote or.
Speaker 0: Yeah. In fact, I was clicking on something else and that thing popped up. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay. You want to withdraw that and chime in, and then you can do your voice vote. All right.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Secretary, please cast your vote in the results.
Speaker 7: 12 Ice.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes for 24 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 3: Now. Denver, 82, New York City, your source?
Speaker 1: Denver eight. On TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
|
Bill
|
Rezones 59-75 South Jackson Street from PUD 512 to G-RH-3 in Council District 10. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 59-75 South Jackson Street from PUD 512 to G-RH-3 (General Urban, Row House, 3 stories) in Council District 10. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-24-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08032015_15-0507
|
Speaker 3: Is that a provision that's in the current lease or is this a new is this an addition, an amendment that's a part? Do you know if the rental of the facility by Denver Inner City Parish is that integral to their being able to continue and to afford providing these services a college view rec center.
Speaker 7: That has one component to it. They received a grant to extend it through 2018.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And do you know if they had does this allow long term rentals?
Speaker 7: The facility rental policy is short term, so it's seasonal. Okay. It's different than our long term agreement.
Speaker 3: Okay. And do you know, do they have any tenants lined up? Not currently. Not currently. Thank you. That's all I had, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Well, ma'am, actually, I believe that is it. So we are ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introductions are ordered published. Councilman Cashman, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block. That would be 493 five, 25, 21, five, 14, five, 15, five, 18 and 552.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Seen no comment, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Can each Lopez I knew Ortega I black eye Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Passed.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore I Cashman.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Lopez.
Speaker 1: Oh, good vote twice. Hi.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please Rothbury announce the results.
Speaker 2: Now nice one.
Speaker 1: Abstention, 91 abstention. The resolution had been adopted in a block. Councilman Cashman, would you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage in a block?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the following bills be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block. That would be for 77. For 78. For 84. For 96 507, one 4443 for 70 and 501.
Speaker 1: Got them in has been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, call Ortega my.
Speaker 2: Black eye, Brooks. Espinosa.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a Second Amendatory Cooperative Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Inner City Parish.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Amends the contract with The Denver Inner City Parish related to third-party rentals at manager’s discretion, preventative and facility maintenance, payment of utility bills, and facility improvements at College View Recreation Center in Council District 7 (PARKS-XC00644-02). The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 7-16-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07132015_15-0356
|
Speaker 3: What what you're being asked to do is to vacate the alley. That that is. To the east of the carriage lot and to the west.
Speaker 10: Of that, we will continue to remain in place. It's the alley to the west of this property. That that will continue to run north. So it's one half block east of Federal Boulevard, and the two alleys that run east west will remain, as a matter of fact. This development incorporates more land going towards the alley so that the traffic can get in and out of the proposed development, which is on a slope, by the way.
Speaker 3: So looking at the legal description of of this proposal, there is alley surrounding the carriage long wreck on all four sides. So a three.
Speaker 10: Sides.
Speaker 3: On all four actually. That's what this vacation is doing. It is vacating that portion of the alley that is to the east of the carriage lot and west of 2329 Eliot.
Speaker 10: Okay. So if there is in fact an alley that is on the east side and I've driven through this property in the front, I have not driven in the back. I've looked at the city's maps and didn't realize there was an East. So given that there are alleys on all four sides, wouldn't it make sense that the the vacation would be divvied up among all the adjacent property owners, as opposed to just the two properties that are to the east of the alley?
Speaker 4: The one of the ground rules in the statute that I described earlier that makes it very formulaic in terms of how the property vest. One provision of that statute says if the adjacency to the property being vacated is owned by the public, it doesn't vest in adjacent public property. It only vests in adjacent private property. And as I'm looking at the diagram that Mr. Hernandez was just referring to, the only adjacent private property is the Eliot steep street property. And so by operation of state law, that's who the vacated right of way it goes to is where there's contiguous adjacent private property. And that's who the applicant was for for this vacation to begin with.
Speaker 10: But you could argue that there's contiguity across the street on the west side and across the street, the alley on both north and and south of the carriage lot. So the adjacency, if it's bordered by four alleys. Like many of these carriage lots are. I'm not understanding how the. Priority should go to. The property owner on the east side as opposed to a property owner on the north or south or across the alley on the west side.
Speaker 4: The diagram submitted with the application shows an unvaccinated alley on the West Side, so the vacated area doesn't touch any private property on the West Side. There's still going to be a city alley on the west side of the carriage lot. That's that's why there's no contiguity on that side and there's no vesting across that alley to the other properties to the west. The benefited property is going to be the property on Elliott Street.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 10: All right. Um, so I guess we're having to vote on this, and that's answered my question, so I'm done. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Rob.
Speaker 14: This is a total aside. I just wanted Councilman Brown to know that the attorney for Alfred Parker in court later shot a Denver Post editor. I thought you'd enjoy that tidbit of history.
Speaker 0: That's certainly a reason to historically designate the Property Bureau.
Speaker 7: Well, all right.
Speaker 3: Amy. All right.
Speaker 7: Back to the 356. Any other comment or question? Two, three, five six is on the floor for final consideration. Do pass. Seen none. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 6: Brown.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 6: Fats.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 6: Can eat layman.
Speaker 12: I'm going to pass.
Speaker 6: Lopez.
Speaker 3: Pass.
Speaker 6: Montero I Nevitt I Ortega no grub no shepherd i susman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 6: Brooks seven I carnage.
Speaker 11: I've seen.
Speaker 6: Lehman.
Speaker 12: Brothers. No.
Speaker 6: Lopez.
Speaker 3: No. No. Sorry. It's so funny.
Speaker 6: Lopez.
Speaker 7: Lopez. Rocky. Thank you.
Speaker 6: No. No. Okay. Uh, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I. Madam Secretary, please close the body. Announced results.
Speaker 6: Eight eyes, four knees, one abstention.
Speaker 7: Eight eyes, four days one abstention. 356 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. The next one, Madam Secretary, I believe, was 400 councilwoman farts. What would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 2: Put it on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 7: Certainly. Councilwoman Shepard, could you please have 400 be placed on final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Council Bill 400 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 7: Has been moved and second make comments. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Yet another six month extension for photo red light program. I wish to be consistent and continue voting no, but I want to add a couple little factors. I noticed that the Denver Post editorial staff was suggesting that maybe cities might want to consider a modification of this program, and it certainly would please me if we went in that direction so that when it comes up, I'm hoping the new council will look more favorably at some modifications. Secondly, you might have noticed that there was a gentleman who's going after Sheraton on all photo enforcement. Guess what? He's my constituent. I plan to vote. No.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Councilwoman fights Councilman Ken each.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I couldn't resist the urge to just end on a somewhat agreeing note with my colleague, Councilwoman Fox, because she was not here last week, one of her probably only four years. But when I when I called this bill out just for comment, I will be voting for it today. But I wanted to assure you, councilwoman fights that it will be the last and only time I vote for such a contract extension unless there are significant changes. And so last week I outlined all those changes. I won't bore everyone again. But it involves more focus on deterrence and education and information and less on, you know, surprise catches. So with that, I will be voting for it tonight. But but it's my my last time. And we need a really very new approach, new structure. And there's actually new technology where you can see the speed you're going when you go by the camera. We should be doing all of that very differently the next time around. So thanks.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. You know, the comment on 400, which is on the floor for final consideration and do pass to none. Madam Secretary, Oracle.
Speaker 6: Fox No Carnage. Layman Lopez AI Montero. Nevitt AI Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Susman. Brooks Brown. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 6: 12 one.
Speaker 7: Nay 12. As one nay accountable. 400 has been placed on final consideration and does pass next. When we have Madam Secretary, I believe it's 371 called out by Councilwoman Ortega. What would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 10: I would like a vote, please.
Speaker 7: Certainly. Councilwoman Shepherd, could you please have 371 placed on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 6: I move that Council Bill 375 series of 20.
Speaker 10: 1571.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry 371 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 7: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I made most of my comments last week when this bill was on first reading. I do not believe that we should be making this change. I do. I did support the amendment to our rules that would make it stronger, but I just think that Council should not be abdicating any of its authority to take a second and more thorough look at some of the legislation that comes through here, particularly contracts which we currently review by two readings by ordinance. And this would change it to a one reading by contract. The amendment the councilwoman brought forward to our rules would basically allow us to have any one member of council hold up a particular contract that they have questions or concerns about or possibly send it to committee. I think that is good, but I just don't think that council should be making this change when what we're talking about is a $39,000 cost savings in our $2 billion budget in eight days in our contracting process. And our our days are pretty prescriptive. And if we delay contracts by a week, we're really not saving a week. And so I just don't think that this particular bill makes sense. I do appreciate the work that's been done by the city clerk's office who brought this forward. I know it's been part of some discussions they've had with the city attorney's office in trying to look at where some condensing, if you will, of the contracting process can take place. But I think where it would make a huge difference is to have consistency and clearly defined steps that people in the agencies have to follow that have to do these contracts. And I think that's something that's continuing to be worked on. And I just know that from having been involved in one of the city agencies where there weren't clear guidelines and steps for me to follow when I had to deal with contracts. So thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I also think, as I shared last week, a little bit longer, a little bit more of a reason why I did not support this. It had nothing to do with the Kirkland Kirkland record. I didn't do it. My my colleague introducing me and bringing it forward. I just I do not I absolutely think that this weakens the legislative branch of government. I think that it gives us that extra opportunity, that extra week provides for us to have more insight, to ask more questions, have staff get back to us without having to pull it out with no facts and just whims, just on a whim. That this may smell bad. I think that extra week gives us the opportunity investigate, which is another chartered council power that nobody really uses to investigate investigatory power. And I think that's the one thing in addition to our our power on on contracts, where we have that check and balance, a much needed check and balance. Again, there is this contracting process in the city, regardless of the department is not perfect. There is. SHENON There have been shenanigans that taken place. We passed it on. We have a study that proves it. And on the other end of it are minority and women owned businesses, folks. It is a hard ballpark to play in without that. And the buck stops with the council. That's why they took it on. That's why they gave themselves that power in the eighties. It is a value that this city holds. And I don't want to let one bit of it slip, but I'm voting no on this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments? 371 on final consideration and do pass. Si none. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 6: Ortega. No, Rob. I shepherd as Susman. Brookes I. Brown Hi, Fats. No can eat lemon. Lopez? No. Monteiro. No, never.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 6: Shepherd. No, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: Hi. Catwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 6: Oh.
Speaker 11: My little button went away.
Speaker 7: It went away. And now I'm saying to you, can you bring that in? Councilman Shepard was a no.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. What is your vote?
Speaker 3: She was a.
Speaker 6: I'm a no, thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the door. Only announce the results.
Speaker 6: Eight eyes 598959.
Speaker 7: 371 have been placed on final consideration and does.
Speaker 3: Pass.
Speaker 7: All right. I believe we have one more 512 court out by council and thoughts. What would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 2: I'd like to make a comment.
Speaker 7: Please go right ahead.
Speaker 2: This is an ordinance dealing with the health insurance for employees. And one of the points that I just want to raise to put on the record, it deals with allowing us to go to high deductible health plans and an accompanying health savings account contribution. Federal law, however, prohibits some individuals from being able to have a health savings account. And so I have asked the committee and we've had a little subcommittee meeting there, something in progress to try to be sure that all employees are treated as equally as possible given that federal prohibition. So there will be a subsequent ordinance coming at a later time as my hope and just be aware for that. But it's the idea to have equity among employees.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. All right, Madam Secretary, quickly.
Speaker 6: Point of order. At least myself and one other councilperson heard this bill referred to as 512. Are we talking about four for 13?
Speaker 7: It was for 12, Constable. Four. Did I get the number? It's Council bill for 12.
Speaker 3: That you're speaking to.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Okay. My apologies if I said the wrong council, Bill. All right. Now, Secretary, that was it correct?
Speaker 0: Ever get out of here?
Speaker 7: Oh, okay. So it seems like the system we lost our no votes on 371. So for the council members that voted no on 371 for the for the records for the minutes was Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilman Lopez. Catwoman can eat.
Speaker 9: No, no.
Speaker 7: Ortega Oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Ortega. Montero and councilman fights those. Those are our five, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Thank you. You're good. All right.
Speaker 7: Now, since that is. That is done. Our other bills are introduction of order published. And we are ready for the block votes council approval. Councilman Shepard, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption and a block, please?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions for 34. For 36 or 37 for 39 for 68 469 for 91 for 90 to all series of 2015 be placed on final. Consider it or be adopted.
Speaker 7: Excuse me. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way at 2329 Eliot Street, without reservations.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Vacates portions of the alley north, east, and south of the carriage lot with the address 2329 North Eliot Street in Council District 1. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-22-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 5-21-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07062015_15-0461
|
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. I move that council resolution for 61 series of 2015 be placed on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 2: It has been moved in second hand. Comments. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. For the benefit of my colleagues who don't serve on the committees and for the public, I'm going to give a little background. This is a proposed rule change to our rules of procedure for the Denver City Council. And it's going to sound like inside baseball of the staff meeting that you never want to attend on a monday morning in your own office about procedure and how things work. But trust me, underneath it all are important principles of separation of powers and oversight and transparency. So there are important principles here. We currently adopt contracts that are above $500,000 by ordinance in the city and county of Denver. An ordinance takes two readings. It happens on a monday night and then it goes for a second reading on the next Monday night meeting. That process takes the time that it takes two weeks, but it also involves a requirement to publish that ordinance afterwards. There is a proposal on our agenda later, and that is Council Bill 371 that I have also called out from our clerk and recorder, Debra Johnson, that was heavily influenced by our city attorney's office, which proposes us changing that, that when we see a contract worth more than a half million dollars, the city council would adopt it in a one reading resolution rather than an ordinance. Their goal is to save money by not having to publish the resolution in a newspaper and print newspaper, believe it or not. And also to save the time delay that both the two readings and the publishing takes so that business of the city can move faster, that we can be efficient with your taxpayer dollars. So that proposal came and it has now been heard in committee four times, technology and services, chaired by Councilwoman Ortega Finance Committee. And then we also discussed it at our City Council Operations meeting, which is our staff meeting. So what that conversation entailed was a real interest from members of the committee that I heard speaking out, that they were interested in the efficiencies of trying to save some time and money, but that contracts are one of those animals that tend to come to us a little bit last minute in terms of the final language that we often hear concerns from the public or even from sometimes employees who are acting a little bit as whistleblowers at the very last minute. And what happens right now in a two reading system is if I get those questions at 3:00 on a monday, I can ask some questions at the city council meeting, but then I can also spend the next week investigating before the final reading. I can ask for more data and who's held the contract in the past? Performance rates, things like that. So I can really make sure that I'm comfortable by the time I vote for it. On the second reading, if we get those kind of last minute concerns and we only have one shot, it's much more difficult for us as a council to investigate. Right? There's not a lot of time. And I wish we lived in a world where people always knew about things early in the process and could give us weeks of notice that they saw some contract was moving through the system. And there's a question we should ask, but we know human nature doesn't work that way. Oftentimes it takes something being on that council agenda for the public to really know that it's important. So in the course of this discussion, a compromise. This is my attempt at making a compromise. I am not comfortable getting rid of that two reading system without some counterbalance way to make sure that we can spend the extra time we need to doing due diligence just in case we have to. So this rule change, which is what we'll be voting on first, actually allows a member of council to request a delay of a contract until the next regular meeting one time. So basically it makes it the same time period we have now, which is for, you know, the resolution would be up one night, you would request a delay and then it would be heard at the next regularly scheduled council meeting, which is typically one week away except when we have a holiday. So that proposal, I'm calling it out now because I need to know as an individual whether this rule change passes to know how I'm going to vote on that other change. So if this rule change passes, I will feel comfortable changing the way we adopt contracts. If this rule change does not pass, I will not be comfortable with having a change to how we approve contracts. So I'm bringing it out now so we can vote on it. We can kind of debate. I'm the two are very connected, so we may end up talking a little bit about the impetus at this time, but the vote will happen later. The actual change in procedure. So with that, I will encourage my colleagues to please vote yes on this rule change. And if if there are any questions with with the president's permission, I am happy to answer them. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Connie Katzman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say a couple of words in favor of this. I think the the principal move that we're making here is taking something that we approve hundreds and hundreds of contracts every year. And most of them are completely uncontroversial. And yet we submit each and every one of them to the double scrutiny of a two hearing process. So we can make absolutely sure that we're in agreement with something over which there is no controversy. So it makes sense that we would be speeding that process up, saving time and money and getting our contracts executed more quickly so that the people's money is on the street and doing what they asked for it to be doing. But occasionally there is something very occasionally that needs a little extra scrutiny. And I think this proposition here is allowing us to speed everything up across the board. But if something needs more scrutiny, it's easy for a council person to say, this is one that I think we need to look at a little bit more and so be supporting this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, councilman. It in your other comments for 61. I would just made the comment. I absolutely understand the reason for the clerk and recorder bringing forward the changes that she wants to do. And I absolutely understand why council members want to ensure that there's a mechanism in place for them to be able to call it a question or even possibly delay the problem, delay the process. The one concern that I have is this is a little bit different than anything that we've done before, is that in our parliamentary procedures, it's a majority rules council. This resolution before us allows one individual, if there's something on the body right here at the chambers to be voted on, one individual can delay the process and grant it is only for one week if there's a holiday or something quirky. It could be too. But from a philosophical standpoint, I think that that's not something that I am comfortable moving forward with. So I would prefer that there would be another way that we can move forward to meet this goal of making sure that council members have the opportunity to be heard without having this, in my, my opinion , dynamic shift in our procedure. So that's the only reason I will be voting no. I think there could be a different way to do it. But if council moves forward, we certainly do. Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate the comments my colleagues have had before me. I, too, am all about wanting to see efficiency. Those of us who govern during the recession, that's all it was. It was. Where do we cut? How can we do it faster and less expensive? And there are some things that, you know, we have to stomach and swallow, especially during the recession. Some things that we did not like doing. Not hiring of firefighters. Not hiring police. Not being able to keep library hours up. We're no longer in that. That doesn't mean we got to go back and not be lean anymore. But there's just some areas that I think that it may seem tenuous. It may seem. Not efficient. But it's we're also in government and these are the people's dollars that that we have and that we are stewards of and all of these contracts. And this is a very huge power that we have when we represent our districts and we make sure that these contracts are fair, that they're just and, you know, very few and far between. We have problematic contracts. When you see contracts that come through our desks, hundreds, thousands come through, and only a handful of them probably give us any kind of headache. Right. And I worry about those ones that do give us headaches. I think about being on this dais when I think it was in 2000, seven or eight, not 28, when I was first elected. And this body had decided to increase the threshold at which we would see contracts from the airport come to our desks. And believe me, even after that, we had problematic contracts, especially at the airport. I think I think both you and I are faces here in the paper. And there was a lot of mudslinging going back and forth over these contracts. But did I think it was the right thing to call in the contract? Absolutely. Did we allow folks to come to the table? Absolutely. But it's because of that. And I want to make sure that we are not in our quest for efficiency, that we are not hurting our transparency, and we are not hurting our opportunity to make sure things are looked at with a fine through it, with a fine tooth comb. And I think that's that's why I'm not very comfortable about it when the committee meetings was kind of undecided. I do appreciate my my colleague, Councilwoman Kenney, to my friend who has tried to find this middle ground as this contract, as this resolution is right now. I can't support that. I don't think it's good government not trying to err on the side of bureaucracy or slowly ness here. Just want an extra week. That extra week could mean jobs, it could mean opportunities, it could mean community benefits. It could mean that we stopped a disaster from happening and making more headlines. Right. So in a negative way. So I'm not in favor of it. I'm not very even with the opportunity to have someone.
Speaker 0: Call it out.
Speaker 5: I just it puts it puts that person in a hard spot. Right. And I think it's it's extra helpful to have it come through to. We have bills come through twice.
Speaker 2: So thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Like Councilman Lopez, I was initially reticent, I mean, going back almost six years when I served on a process committee on speeding up contracts to go this route. Although I have to say, I'm not one of the people who has called out contracts throughout my time on council. And a lot of times when they have been called out, I may not have voted the same way or had the same concerns as my colleagues. But I do believe that with this rule change, which is what we're voting on right now, that we have built in a safeguard. If a contract is delayed for a week so that one of us, even if it's just one, can get information. I believe while majority rules, minority interests always need information. And when we don't have that information, we should have it. So I think we've got a safeguard in there. If this is delayed, it's going to take no longer than the to reading bill. So, Councilman Herndon, I feel like even when we call a bill off of consent, that gives us more time and that can be done by one council member. So I think in pursuit of information that a minority position is important, even if it doesn't align directly with it with the position I may have. Secondly, in terms of council's power, which I as I said, like Councilman Lopez, I was really worried about because council fought hard to review contracts in the eighties.
Speaker 7: But again.
Speaker 6: We have this ability to say, wait a minute, I didn't get enough information. And even when you see them come through on consent, I said to the clerk and recorder, this may mean we pull more contracts off of consent and send them to committee before they ever get to council. So if there's a problem and you've seen a trend, perhaps at the airport of something that. That you're concerned about. You can say, hey, this one, we better get some more information on even before it gets to the one reading resolution. You still don't get enough. You can delay it again. So I think we have the safeguards built in. I did give this a lot of thought. But I think it's all there and I'm comfortable with it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Rob, Gotham City, Tribeca.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Just one quick point of information. I did not make this clear. This rule change is written in such a way that it only goes into effect if the later bill passes. So for my colleague, Councilman Lopez, I respect that. Even with the rule change, you can't get there on the later bill. But I would still ask for your vote on this rule change so that it's there if it does pass. But you can be assured that this rule change does not take effect if the later bill fails to pass. It just it only applies if contracts are ever approved by resolution. It has no effect whatsoever if the later bill fails. So it is it is a possible scenario to vote for the rule change and vote against the procedural ordinance change. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Neville, you back up.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. And just I want to make sure I have all this straight in my own head. So. Council Bill 371 on introduction on page nine is the bill that would allow City Council to approve contracts with a one reading resolution just by virtue of our procedure handling resolutions before bills on introduction or final consideration . Councilwoman Conscious Resolution Changing our rules would be amending Council Bill 371 on our ability to approve contracts with a one reading resolution. Correct.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I wouldn't call it a mending, but impacts. Correct. It does not change the language of that bill. It just it's written in such a way that it goes into effect only if that later bill passes.
Speaker 0: Got it.
Speaker 4: Sorry.
Speaker 0: No, thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman. Ever, Councilman Lopez? You betcha.
Speaker 5: I guess part of my question was answered and during that exchange. But Councilwoman Khanna, I definitely understand the scenario for me. Like I said, just to reiterate, it's about. It's about good government. Yes. You want to be efficient, but we also want to have a magnifying glass and everything that we do. And also, because things aren't equal, contracts are very coveted things in this city. And when you're in, you're in. And not very many people are in, and especially not women and especially not minorities. And there's a lot of folks who are if you let's just say that, you know, it requires some extra eyes on it to ensure fairness. And, sure, that these things are better, ensure that the process is right and sure that it was fair. And that's that's where I'm coming with this contracts. One of the main powers of city council is making sure that we are counting all those coins and that coin curse of this coin coin purse of the cities. So I don't want to relinquish any of that as a legislative branch.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. All right. In the comments for 61 c none. Madam secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Can each lemon lopez no Montero.
Speaker 7: Pass.
Speaker 3: Nevett i Ortega I rob i Brooks Brown.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 3: Montero I.
Speaker 5: Well, actually this was the rule for 61.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're voting on for 61.
Speaker 5: The rule first. Can each rule first. Yes, I messed up. I'm sorry. That's supposed to be a yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. Go ahead. What? We can withdraw your vote.
Speaker 5: I got it. This is the first time I had to do it. That's pretty nifty.
Speaker 3: Okay. Mr. President. No.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, close. Please call to announce the results.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Nine eyes one day.
Speaker 2: Nine eyes one day for 61 has been adopted. All right, Madam Secretary, you ante up the next one, which should be Bill's introduction. 400. Councilwoman Greenwich. What would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 4: Thank you. I really called out 404 oh one is a package and I do not believe I need to put them on the floor for a vote. Just a comment.
Speaker 2: All right. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, these bills are extensions of our. I'm sorry. I'm flipping to them. Of our photo radar contracts. So 400 is for our photo red light program, and 401 is for our speed enforcement program. There is no shortage of interest in photo enforcement in the state of Colorado and among our constituents. And I've I've shared these comments previously from the dais. This is an extension of an existing contract. This contract was due to be rebid. And we put that bidding on hold because the legislature was having a debate about whether this would be a possibility for local governments or not. So I do not like some of the terms in our current contract. I do not like the signage that we use to let people know that photo enforcement is occurring. The signs. If our goal is to deter speeding or to deter people from running red lights than our signage, letting folks know that they are under surveillance and in an enforcement zone should be much more prominent than it is. We should have people we have speech trailers that tell you how fast you are going. And then we have red light cameras that are speed cameras that catch you for going too fast. But we do not use them together. So what you don't do is drive by and see, oh, I was going 42 in the 35. You don't see it while it's happening, which leads people to not trust the level that they were that they were cited for. So I believe we need to have simultaneous education while we're doing enforcement. You should see that you were going 42 at the moment that you are cited for going 42. So those are some of the changes. I think it's critical that we as a city explore. The other concern that I have is how the revenue is used. We have heard concerns about whether this is a revenue generator. I don't believe it is. I believe it's a safety program. But the way that we can demonstrate that to the public is to designate the funds for pedestrian safety. And we have a great need for all kinds of intersection safety improvements in this city. It would be no, it would be not difficult in my mind at all to designate these dollars for those particular uses so the public can see how we are using any money raised through citations specifically for safety. So those are the changes that I believe must be made. And I am voting for this extension tonight for the very last time. I will never vote to extend this existing contract with these existing terms again, and I will never vote for another contract or another red light contract that doesn't include changes that involve education and deterrents and linking funds for safety. Those are three things that I think are really important. There may be others that we need to consider in light of the, you know, state legislatures interest in this topic. But for me, those are kind of the deal breakers. So I will be voting for these tonight. But I wanted to raise the awareness of my colleagues that I think we need to play an active role in the policy discussion regarding how the new contracts are bid and the way that we as a city approach this topic. We need to be responsive to the feedback we've heard, which is if our goal is deterrence, we need to design the contract with education and deterrence in mind. Right now, they're very difficult to see, and it's more of a surprise that they can't really deter behavior if you don't see it. So those are my suggestions for the next contract and I look forward to being hopefully engaged in the RFP process. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. So that was her comment and I see no others for 400 or four one. So if councils are right, we will go to 371 court how about councilmembers Ortega and Kenny now? Councilman Ortega I believe you have it for a purpose of amendment. Councilwoman Kenny, did you have something as well?
Speaker 4: I'll pass.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 7: So you need it out for.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Councilman Nevitt, will you please put 371 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 371 series of 2015 be placed on be ordered published.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of procedure in regard to the postponement or re-referral to committee of resolutions submitted to Council for approval of any matter arising under Section 3.2.6 of the Charter.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Authorizes individual council members to postpone for one week (or re-refer to committe) resolutions approving contracts or leases, if Council allows contract and lease approvals by one-reading resolution rather than ordinance. This resolution is being filed by Councilwoman Kniech.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07062015_15-0371
|
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 371 series of 2015 be placed on be ordered published.
Speaker 2: It has been moved in seconding Councilwoman Ortega, your amendment.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, I move that council bill 371 be amended by inserting that intergovernmental agreement that require council approval or on line one of page two after the words, however, and before the word that. So if I can explain what this is. Just. We need a second person.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we got the move and we got the second time for comments. Councilman, I take it you're up.
Speaker 7: So what this amendment does is it will continue to keep inter-governmental agreements as to reading ordinances and separated out from the contracts. So although our attorney city attorney's office considers ideas intergovernmental agreement as contracts, this amendment would have IGAs and continue to be reviewed as they are today. So they will not fall under the language of this particular ordinance. It removes them and keeps them as a two reading ordinance.
Speaker 2: That's awesome. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any comment on the amendment? Governor Leavitt.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I just we had a long discussion of this in committee or one of the many committees that this was discussed in. And I think this is a worthy addition to the, uh, to the ordinance. If you think about it, you know, there's a a zillion contracts that pass across our desk. Most of them are uncontroversial. We've talked about that. The ones that do generate any controversy. And many of those actually are intergovernmental agreements. We treat them as contracts, but those are the ones that do tend to generate a little bit more scrutiny. So if those are the ones that fall into a different category, it makes sense that we treat them as a different category. And I think Councilwoman Ortega's amendment does just that. And so I'll be supporting that.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Levitt. Any other comments on the amendments for 371? Seen none. We're voting on the amendment. Madam Secretary, Raquel.
Speaker 3: Ortega.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 3: Brooks. I brown. I can eat lemon. Lopez, Montero, Nevitt. Hi, Rob. Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: Tonight.
Speaker 2: Tonight, 371 has been amended. Now, counsel, whenever we need a motion to order published as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 371 series of 2015 be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Comments. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. So when this particular ordinance was brought forward to committee that I chair, I had some concerns about. What was being asked of us, basically by taking all contracts from what is now to reading by ordinance to one reading by resolution. I supported the change to the rule and the amendment, but in general I do not support compromising our process. And when this was brought to us, we were told that we would save eight days in the contracting process and about $39,000. We were given different information today that related to staff time when we have people from the different agencies who have to come down here on Monday night when we were dealing with the issue. But technically these are salaried employees, so they're going to get paid the same whether they're here or not here. So I just think that with Denver being a strong mayor form of government that for city council to change the rules, to not allow ourselves to have the two reading time frame. And I do appreciate the amendment to the rules that Councilwoman Kim each brought forward, because if this does pass, that at least still gives any one council member the opportunity to hold it up for a week or to have it go back to committee. But I think in general, the contracting process, which I've had an opportunity to participate in when I was part of the Department of Human Services, where I had to do a number of contracts with service providers. First of all, there's no systematic way that every single agency does the contracts the same way in ensuring that as staff changes happen, that the new person that has to do the contract has clarity and understanding on all those procedural steps they have to go through with the vendors to ensure that, you know, what's being done is one agency is consistently being done in another agency. And until I see that all of that has been shored up and the shortening of the time frame is is one that, in fact, works for everybody. I'm not willing to support this ordinance change. So I just wanted to explain my no vote on the ordinance itself. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I think you've made a point. And the last the last time I spoke about it and the reasons why I to start with Councilman Councilwoman Ortega, I just think this is a power that we have that we've had for a very long time. And it's a very important process. We shouldn't forsake it. There's a reason why it kind of sit for two weeks. And when we've we've actually shined a light on some of these contracts, we had a validity to create some accountability. That's exactly why, again, there's a lot of bills that go through. There's a lot of contracts that go through. These are few and far between, but they are very important and I think we are doing ourselves a disservice and the legislative branch to be voting against our own process here.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Robb.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Two points at the time when in the eighties, when council achieved the power of reviewing contracts over $500,000, resolutions were used primarily the way we use proclamations today to take perhaps a legislative position beyond our own powers on a city council to recommend something to the state or federal government, or to commend a person who has served the city well, either as a private citizen or a city employee. And we didn't have the form of resolutions. So I don't see this as taking away as much power. Council didn't even have that option on the table when when they first gained that power. And as I explained before, I think we have ensured that the power is preserved through the rule change. The second point I would make is Councilman Brown and I served on a committee to try to speed up contracts through the city process. And the process has been shortened in terms of if everything goes barring human error goes as should go, it's a shorter process before we even do this. But the reason we did that good times or bad times aside, is to get the contracts on the street and create jobs sooner. And I think that's a pretty powerful reason to do this more than the filing fee. Or the publication fees of the ordinance. I think it really is about keeping people at work in this city, getting work done efficiently in the city. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez, you know the comment.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I mean, not to why? I guess we are being argumentative again. Like I said, it's all hunky dory when you're part of the majority. It's all hunky dory. Hunky dory when it's, you know, when it's not of concern. But there's like I said, through the contracting process, there's there's a lot of there's a lot of politics involved. And women and minorities get the shaft. And we actually have had a study that was commissioned that showed even not to pick on the airport. I think we had a great airport and great staff there and here, but it showed that there was discrimination and show that there was not enough representation of those of those populations in our contracting process, the folks that are awarded contracts. And when you look at jobs, I'd love to take a look at how many jobs are created. I love for them to say that in every contract. And how many of those are going to Denver residents? Right. And so that's that's those questions are asked when somebody brings it up, whether it's a whistleblower on the inside, whether it's a member of the public, because we see so many of these come through, we can't catch all of them. And we need the time to be able to look at those. That's why that exists, because we need to correct that. We need to make sure that the process is fair. And we it's been proven that it hasn't been fair. And yes, we may have not had it since Denver was founded, but it is a process that a council of the people that represented the people agreed to do and agreed to take on. And, you know, it doesn't hurt us to stay a little longer on Monday night to get it done. Just ensure that equity. Right. And that's that's what it's about at the end of the day. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. All right. Any other comments on 371 as amended? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Can each. Hi.
Speaker 3: Lehman. Hi. Lopez. No. Montero. I nevett. I. Ortega.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 3: Rob Brooks Brown.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Councilman Ortega, your vote. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. Because we've only announced the results.
Speaker 3: Eight eyes, two nays, 82 nays.
Speaker 2: 371 has been ordered. Published as amended. Well, Madam Secretary, I believe that was it. So we are now ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Nevett, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption and a block?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that the following resolutions all series of 2015 be adopted in a block council resolution for 86 for 80 7409 for 31 and for 32.
Speaker 2: Got them all seen? No comment. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Brooks Brown. I can each layman. Lopez, Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting results tonight. Tonight, as resolutions have been adopted in a block. Councilman Levitt, will you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage? With the exception of Council Bill 430, which establishes a capital grant fund as part of the intergovernmental agreement regarding I-70, East Project Council will vote to pass Companion Bill 430 later tonight after the conclusion of the one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 381 as amended approving the intergovernmental agreement regarding Montclair and Park Hill Basin drainage improvement and I-70 transportation enhancements.
Speaker 0: Got it. Mr. President, that's accountable for 30, is that correct? Yes, sir. Okey doke. Thank you. I move that the following bills all series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass in a block. Those would be Council Bill 389 three 9391 392 393 395 429. 406 414 415 419 for 25 to 37 394 327 328 329 three 3331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 389 422.
Speaker 2: Got them on. It has been moved in second hand. See? No comment, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Brooks, I. Brown. I can eat. Lemon. Lopez. I. Monteiro. I. Nevitt. Ortega. Hi, Rob. All right. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and have the results tonight. Tonight, the bills placed on final consideration do pass and block one lengthy pre recess announcement. Tonight, there will be a combined required public hearing on Council Bill 312 as amended approving the text amendments to the Denver Zoning Code, creating the Scottish Village Conservation Overlay and Council Bill 313. Changing the zoning classification for multiple properties, roughly bounded by 32nd Avenue, Clay Street, Dunkeld Place and Zuni Street. A combined required public hearing on counter Bill 319 as amended, approving a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code, creating the Potter Highland Conservation Overlay and Council Bill 321. Changing the zoning classification for multiple properties, roughly bounded by 38th Avenue, Federal Boulevard, 32nd Avenue and Zuni Street. A combined required public hearing on Countable 322 as amended, approving a text amendment to the Denver zoning code, creating a side interior setback, design overlay and Council Bill 323.
|
Bill
|
Amends the process for approving contracts via City Council in order to save time and administrative costs.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07062015_15-0322
|
Speaker 2: Kathryn Lopez. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please, because it only announced the results tonight. SheKnows 321 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. Our third combined publication is going to be on Council Bill 322 as amended and 323. Councilman, Councilman, will you please put the council bill 322 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir, Mr. President. And I am doing this correctly, right? Just putting the one bill on the floor and then we're just having the combined public hearing. Yes. Okay. I move that council bill 322 as amended, be placed on series of 2015, be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and seconded. The combined public hearing for Council Bill 322 as amended and 323 is open. Speakers may address either or both bills. Council will vote separately on each bill at the conclusion of the public hearing. May we have staff report?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Stephen Ali with committee planning and Development. This is the East Side interior design overlay is both both a text amendment and a map amendment. Again, the the purpose of this text map amendment is to reflect and reinforce the narrow side interior setbacks found in the late 19th century neighborhoods. Specifically, Highland, was the impetus for this overlay. There are a number of areas throughout Denver that have specifically residential areas that were developed in the late 19th century that have fairly narrow side interior setbacks. In some cases, the eaves are touching, but the intent is to acknowledge and reinforce that character with this design overlay. So the same process and I should also mention that Councilwoman Judy Montero initiated this proposed text and map amendment as well. Public notification for the April 29 planning board hearing was emailed to all Arnaud's and all city councilmembers, and signs were posted for the related Map amendment. And then public notification for City Council tonight was emailed to all our knows and signs were posted throughout the neighborhood as well. So the text amendment creating video for this is a very simple, straightforward design overlay for primary building form standards. This three foot side interior setback for zone lots greater than 30 feet and up to 40 feet. And what is allowed today and we kind of talked about this in the previous discussion about a three foot or ten foot combined, four zone lots, 30 feet and up to 40 feet. And what this would allow a three foot minimum sized interior, six foot combined for detached accessory dwelling unit standards. There's a zero foot minimum side to your step back, where today there's a five foot so interior setback. So this is acknowledging the narrower side interior setbacks that exist in this area. All right. The review criteria for a design overlay is the it is a text amendment. So consistency was adopted plans in furthering public health safety and well for the general public health safety and general welfare. And that the text meant results and regulations that are uniform within each zone district. So three plans apply to the Text Amendment Plan 2000 text. The proposed text is consistent with many confident twin goals, including encouraging quality infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Proposed text amendment is consistent with many blueprint Denver strategies, including a single family and single family duplex concept, land use and. And the. The proposed area for which this text movement was written is an area of stability designed to further stabilize and acknowledge the existing character. The proposed sex amendment is consistent with many Highland neighborhood plan strategies, including revitalizing the housing stock and maintaining and stabilizing the character of the neighborhood. The Sixth Amendment furthers the public health, safety and general welfare of Denver residents as it provides for context sensitive and character reinforcing standards that further stabilize the neighborhood. And the Sixth Amendment will result in uniform regulations applicable to all new buildings within land mapped video for CB recommends approval based on finding that the criteria have been met for a text amendment. Now shifting to the map amendment for design overlay for audio for we are in the Highland Neighborhood Council District nine. This is a much larger covers more area than the previous overlays spanning from portions of east of Zuni all the way to almost all up to 25. And then a portion to the south of. Many nights which has you are RH 2.5 zoning. So the review criteria for improvement is consistency with the plans, uniform industry regulations and to further the public health, safety and welfare. There are three plans that apply to this MAP amendment. This proposed map move is consistent with many campaign 2000 goals, including encouraging quality infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed map amendment is consistent with many blueprint diverse strategies, including the single family duplex and single family concept land use. In acknowledging that this is an area of stability and the proposed standards would further stabilize and further maintain the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed map is consistent with many highland and neighborhood plan strategies, including heightening the sense of neighborhood pride, revitalizing the housing stock, maintaining and stabilizing the character of the neighborhood. This is the map of Blueprint Denver, which covers a large portion of single family duplexes and single family residential. This map amendment will result in uniform regulations applicable to all new buildings within land mapped d04. And this MAP Amendment furthers the public health and general welfare of Denver residents as it provides for context sensitive and character reinforcing centers that further stabilize the established neighborhood so that CPD recommends approval based on finding that all criteria have been met.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Now we have authority on the wrong bill. We have one speaker timbers.
Speaker 10: This is becoming a habit again. Timbers 2558 West 32nd Avenue process. You've heard that one already, so we won't go there again. You know, the real purpose behind this design overlay is to make sure that new construction and additions fit better into the historic development patterns. And while many of our neighbors would love us to somehow get zoning to deal with the design of the architecture of the houses, we all recognize that's not the case. But we do think that having structures that fit into the patterns of our neighborhood are really important. And so that's where where this is going. We've we saw quite a few examples as we studied these parts of the neighborhood where somebody might have a house sitting close to one property line or right on the property line and want to expand to the side. But they were being penalized under the current zoning where they'd have to have at least a seven foot setback on the on the flip side. And so in this tighter, tighter area of the neighborhood on lots between 30 and 40 feet in width, it's really important to bring that three minimum ten total down to three and three so that reasonable development can happen that fits into the pattern of the neighborhood. And then the accessory dwelling units of having setbacks there that are consistent with garages and other secondary buildings make sense here like it does in the rest of our neighborhood. So those are the the basic pieces of this one. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay, Captain. That concludes our speakers. Any questions? 322 as a minute or 323 Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: My question has to do with this is probably for the city attorney whether or not the pending doctrine ordinance applies. So while this was moving through the process, if we had developments coming through and then what I'm thinking about is the United Way building, for example, if the pending doctrine ordinance applies and these rules. Affect that development or any others that are going into the area. Can you speak to that, Adam?
Speaker 0: Adam Hernandez, Assistant City Attorney with Municipal Operations. I am not sure if the pending ordnance doctrine would apply, but I believe if an application is currently in with the city, that the city would be processing that under the code. That was at the time of application. And I would also.
Speaker 8: Defer to Steve on that as well.
Speaker 9: So the interesting thing about this amendment in particular is that actually it's more generous than the underlying zone district. So in all likelihood, if plans were submitted, which I'm not aware of, any where a conflict would be created, but in all likelihood of plans were submitted, then they would meet the underlying zone decision because it is a minimum set back. You can set your building back more than what is required by the overlay. So again, it is more generous, not more restrictive, and therefore there should not be any problems with this new language.
Speaker 7: So, Steve, will you pull up the map that shows the boundaries of this area? I was just looking at this a minute ago, and these computers do funny things, but if you can pull that up. What I am trying to figure out is how the view corridor from Hirshhorn Park applies to anything down on the eastern edge of the neighborhood that's within the boundaries. Does that in any way, shape or form impact heights or anything along those lines.
Speaker 0: About that park?
Speaker 9: No, isn't there is no impact. I mean, again, the the the change to the under the playing zone district is only related to and to your set back. There's nothing about height and it's only applicable to the properties that are shaded in blue. I think the park that you're referencing is it's actually it's low, high and five and the overlay would not apply to that area anyways.
Speaker 7: Okay. All right. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any questions? 322 or 323. Councilman Robert.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I was just looking up in the zoning code and couldn't find it and can't remember. Do we have a minimum square footage for. For how much land has to be zoned or requirements for contiguous ness?
Speaker 9: There is a requirement for a minimum area. I believe it's two acres for for conservation overlays and design overlays. You know, I have to defer to the attorney about the fact that this is a legislative rezoning, and some of those rules do not always apply. However, I'm confident that each overlay is over two acres of land and would meet that threshold.
Speaker 6: Well, yeah, I guess my question is on page two of the staff report for this, where they show the map to the very south. There's a smaller piece and I don't know if that's considered. It's not contiguous. And so I'm not I don't know if that's considered its own zone district or part of this overlay zone district
Speaker 7: . Right.
Speaker 9: Okay. That's a good question. It's not contiguous to the other parts of the map, but it is part of the effort where it all adds up to greater than two acres. I think that's an interpretation from our attorney. However, this is a legislative amendment, and I think that those rules do not apply.
Speaker 6: A weak link of break rules with the citizens can break.
Speaker 9: You can break rules. So.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 6: I was waiting to hear if we have any requirements for contiguous snus or if Steve knows whether that southernmost piece of the rezoning that's not contiguous is greater than two acres.
Speaker 9: So it's going to be close. I did not calculate that specific area counting right of way. And you know, because the zoning does go to the center line, I would have to go back to calculate, but it would be close for sure.
Speaker 6: Okay. So do we have any requirements anymore for contiguous snus? I guess the billboard over, you know, the historic preservation overlay is not contiguous to that. No. It was all old earth rezoning.
Speaker 9: But it doesn't use the term contiguous. It's. It's two acres and at least two facing blocks.
Speaker 6: What section of the code is that?
Speaker 9: That is in 12 four. 12 for ten three of minimum areas related to MAP amendments. Okay.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 2: You were good, Councilwoman.
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 2: Any other questions? 322 or three? 23 322 has a couple of Monteiro.
Speaker 7: I don't have a question.
Speaker 2: We're going to receive the comments. Okay. All right. So see, you know the questions. The public hearing is now closed. Comments, Councilman Monteiro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to take this opportunity to offer my support for these council bills. Council Bill 322 and 323. Just as a reference point is related to all of the bills that we've passed so far, related to the boundaries of Highland, our federal boulevard to the West, 38th Avenue to the North, Speer Boulevard to the south, and in in I 25 to the west. And I just want to say that it's just been my honor to work with Highland United neighbors, PCD, for the last 12 years. And I feel that all of these going forward are imperative to preserving the character of a very, very popular and wonderful Highland neighborhood, but also to be able to stabilize and to grow families and be able to keep the the rich history and the diversity and the mixed income and the economy going forward. So I am very, very proud to be able to present these. I want to thank everyone, everyone Rebecca and Jeff and Tim and Mary and Brian and Jerry and all the people and especially my council aide, Amanda Sandoval. For all of your help, all of your care and volunteer hours that we've put into creating this. I think as the council representative for Highland and the District nine piece, that after 30 years of working away at this, that you are the gold standard for for being able to customize what is needed in a particular area. And so I commend you and I thank you so much and encourage the support of these council bills. On behalf of my colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Monteiro, Counsel Catwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I just want to take a moment also to thank all of the neighbors and city staff, and especially Councilwoman Monteiro, for bringing these forward as the sponsor for the hard work that's been put in. I remember going to one of the honey meetings where you all were talking about this and you know, it's a lot of work to do. These you have to go through and survey your neighborhood and reach out to the property owners. And, you know, it it takes a heavy lift to make these kinds of things happen and to, you know, be successful, to listen to your neighbors and their concerns and try to, you know, factor their input into the changes that get brought forward. And I just want to say that you all have done an outstanding job with these, also have to disclose that I live within the boundaries of the Highland neighborhood, specifically the last set of bills that have been brought forward. But I think these changes are going to be really good for the neighborhood as a whole. And Tim, you've been at it for many, many years. I can remember when you didn't have gray hair. But what most people here don't know is that Tim is an architect. And so his attention to detail in working with the neighborhood and ensuring that all the things that got incorporated into what was brought forward happened with everybody's input. But with that critical eye that he has, I think, really helped bring forward something that the community will be proud of and will benefit from for many, many years to come. So thank you. I will be supporting these changes tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Any Council comments? 322 as amended or 323. All right. First the 322 as amended. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Montero Hi. Nevitt Hi. Ortega Hi, Rob. Brooks Hi.
Speaker 0: Brown Hi.
Speaker 3: Gage Layman.
Speaker 0: Lopez Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi. Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you announce the results.
Speaker 3: Tonight.
Speaker 2: In Nice 322 as a minute has passed. Councilman Leavitt, will you please put 323 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code creating the Side Interior Setback Design Overlay, DO-4, comprised of building forms standards that are consistent with the established character of the area intended to be mapped DO-4 in Council District 9 (2015I-00070). (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code creating the Side Interior Setback Design Overlay, DO-4, comprised of building forms standards that are consistent with the established character of the area intended to be mapped DO-4 in Council District 9 (2015I-00070). IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07062015_15-0324
|
Speaker 2: Hi. Madam Secretary, please possibly announce the results tonight. Tonight's 323 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are on to the next one, which is Council Bill 324. Councilman Neville, will you please put three total on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 324, as amended, be placed on Final Considered series of 2015, be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 324, as amended, is now open. May we have staff report?
Speaker 9: All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Steve Daly with committee planning development. We are now shifting gears of the north, part of north part of the city. Kelly, we just got here. He's going to say a few words here and a bit. So we are we are entering into the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative area of the city. And this first bill is uh, um, National Western Center zoning simply text amendments. This is writing the new texts to the new zone district for the Denver zoning code. So the community partners associated with, with this effort, the National Western Center partners include CSU, the National Western Stock Show, the City of Denver, History, Colorado, and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. In addition to community partners, including the dedicated members of the National Western Center Citizens Advisory Committee, this text amendment was initiated by Brad Buchannan , Executive Director of Community Planning and Development, and Kelly, lead executive director of North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. Quite a bit of public process for writing. The text amendment started with the adoption of the Globeville Neighborhood Plan on December 1st, which recommends the build out of the National Western Center. And a lot of the recommendations from the Globeville Neighborhood Plan rely on the implementation of the National Western Center itself. So from January to March of 2015, there were preliminary discussions about zoning and the best approach to implementing the master plan. And on February 23rd of this year, the Elyria Swansea Neighborhoods Plan was adopted by City Council, another planning document that recommends the build out of the National Western Center on March 9th. The National Western Center Master Plan was adopted by you all. And so there has been a lot of planning, a lot of thinking into the future of the National Western Center. And reading the zoning is one of many steps to implement all of the planning that is taking place from March sorry, on February 28th of 2015. Over there, CPD presented a summary of the text amendment to agency zoning and planning. On March 5th through April 16th, we had an intense set of meetings and intensive, if you will, a number of meetings in a short amount of time. Actually seven. We met seven times with the CAC or the National Western Center Citizens Advisory Committee to discuss all aspects of both the text and the MAP Amendment. On March 30th, the draft was posted to the CPD website. The draft of the proposed text in the map was also emailed to all Arnaud's on the 14th of April, Public Notification for Planning Board was emailed to Arnaud's and all city council members and signs were posted for the related map amendments. On the 29th of April, we attended Planning Board. There was a unanimous vote for approval with one condition. Then I'll discuss the following slide. On the 13th of May, went to Neighborhoods and Planning Committee. 1st of June was first Reading City Council. On June 8th, City Council postponed a public hearing and proposed on the proposed amendment to July six, which is tonight. And on the 11th of June, public notification for City Council Public Hearing was emailed to all Arnaud's and all the City Council members and signs were updated that we're located throughout the neighborhood. We're here tonight for the public hearing. So on the April 29th Planning Board, it was a unanimous vote of recommending approval 1010 oh with the following condition. But the City Council acknowledges and addresses the concerns expressed by the neighborhood stakeholders with regards to neighborhood involvement and governance and community equity. So the national in our entitlement process, you know, there's a lot there are a lot of things that need to take place to implement the plans that we've written. It started with the plan, the vision. We start to drill down in precision and we're writing the crossing, the text and the map amendment. Next steps along this regulatory path will be writing a Public Realm study that discusses the parks and plazas and open spaces throughout the proposed campus for a National Western Center complex also design standards and guidelines that will scope the buildings and speak to what the building should look like and how they should be designed will then move into more precision, which would be site planning and where we get the engineers involved and we make sure that we're we're meeting our life and safety and really designing these buildings inside and out and then we're building. So we've got quite a bit to do between now and then. And this is just this is just a small taste of all the things that are going on and how we can address that. So the proposed tax amendment, the components of his own desires. We're writing a brand new zone district for the Denver zoning code. So we have to determine the context, the zone district standards, which include the building form standards, the uses and minimum parking, and then the general design standards related to landscaping and signage. So starting with the context. So in Division 9.2, you will find the campus context and this is the cover page of the campus context that the context or the campus zone districts that exist in the code today would be SAE, MPH, which is the health care campus of Denver. Health is mapped to page. You have CPI, which is the campus education institution. So the Arara campus has the CPI. And then there's the campus entertainment P.A. Gardens, and currently the Coliseum is maps to you. But none of these existing zoned districts will achieve all of the program, all the uses and the vision identified for the National Restaurant Centers. We're writing a new zone district, and the campus is a really nice fit as far as the context where you have a large contiguous piece of land, where you have similar wayfinding and a number of uses allowed, and building heights that are where you can get to your highest height in the middle of the site and transition at the edges. So campus is the context in where the zone district will have the building form standards similar to those found in other campus zone districts. The max height is 150 feet, with a transition down to the surrounding neighborhoods of transitioning that height down to Brayton Boulevard. There are protected district transitions should they be needed, which are built into all of our zoning districts. There's a small setback required which introduces the need for some landscaping. If there is a zero foot setback, that there wouldn't be the requirement for landscaping around the structures. And then this specific building design will be controlled by design standards and guidelines, and that is not part of the zoning. So we are just kind of creating the box to work with in. The exciting part of the allowed uses include agricultural activities, cultural research and educational uses. Entertainment, civic, public and institutional uses, recreation, residential, commercial, and uses associated with meeting the energy goals of net zero waste energy and water. So the general design standards related to landscaping is required as part of the Basin District. Additional landscaping standards will be created in subsequent public realm and design centers and guidelines. The zoning is mostly written for the actual structures and the uses, and those plazas and open spaces that are envisioned will be controlled by those public realm and design centers of guidelines. Signage. The sign centers are consistent with other campus zoned districts, specifically S.P.A.. The National Assessment Center Master Plan does contemplate a revenue stream from signage and being innovative with designs, and so there will likely need to be some amendment to the zone district or some other standards written for signage. As this builds out and we locate the buildings and we know exactly where the signs should go and the type of flashing or flashing. And then screening is also found in general design standards. There's a high level of screening required, and it's similar to what was found in other mixed use zone districts. So criteria criteria for review for a text amendment consistency was adopted plans and furthers the public health safety in general welfare and results in regulations that are uniform within each zone district. There are five plans that apply to the site, starting with comp plan 2000. The proposed text amendment is consistent with many objectives and strategies found in competent 2000, as detailed in the staff report, but also highlighted below. It's promoting in-fill development, designing mixed use communities, reducing sprawl so that residents can live, work and play within their own neighborhoods, and creating more density at transit nodes, enhancing existing focal points in neighborhoods , and encouraging the development of such focal points to the text amendment in the standards on the text movement are consistent with these goals. From Comp Plan shifting to Blueprint Denver The proposed text amendment is consistent with many objectives and strategies, and I went to greater detail on my staff report. The land use concept is entertainment culture exhibition and is an area of change. We would like to funnel and channel the growth envisioned by the master plan, the global neighborhood plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with many objectives and strategies found within that plan, as detailed in the staff report. A number of strategies rely on the build out of the national western, such as embracing the South Platte River and providing better access to community resources, which is a number of community resource uses would be allowed by the base or by the text amendment improving educational opportunities. So the CFP in NWC allows education for all ages, and then also in introducing new multimodal connections over the river to the National Western Center. So is critical and a critical implementation element for the Globeville Neighborhood Plan and the proposed phasing in the build out of National Western Center would start to implement those plans and the Text and Map Amendment is one of many fronts for implementing the National Western Center. Shifting to early response to the neighborhood plan, the proposed text amendment is consistent with many objectives and strategies found in earlier in Swansea Neighborhood Plan, as detailed in the staff report but also highlighted here, the allowed building heights should accommodate redevelopment of the National Western Center, the text amendment and proposed copy NWC allows of 250 feet, which would accommodate the large structures necessary for this future campus and complex. The plan also recommends encouraging development of key sites, including the National Western Center. The Text Amendment and mapping the zoning will allow for the build out of the National Western Center and then targeting TOD opportunities adjacent to the station. The list of uses allowed by the zone district are similar to those found in zone districts that are mapped near transit stations. And then the National Western Center Master Plan Prose Text Amendment is consist of many objectives and strategies found in that plan as it recommends providing a variety of programs. This is a long list of uses allowed by the Zone District to foster regeneration, and these are the goals related to energy waste water. And the Zone District allows many of those uses and to drive new tourism and the building forms allow for larger structures or large events could be held where we can drive that new tourism that's envisioned by the plan. The Texas move furthers the public health, safety and general welfare of Denver residents as they provide for implementation and revitalization of the National Western Center as identified in the city's adopted plans. And this tax amendment will result in uniform regulations applicable to all new buildings within land mapped copy in WC. So with that, CPD recommends approval based on finding that criteria have been met. Related to the text amendment. So I'd like to turn it over to Kelly, if you don't mind, just to just to kick us off.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 10: Thanks, Steve. Kelly, LEED, executive director of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative in the National Western, is one of our six portfolio projects that are going to help reconnect and reenergize these neighborhoods. And I just had a couple of quick comments and I'll be very brief. One is Steve mentioned this really is this is a milestone for this project. Think about where we were four years ago when you were talking about the national western leaving our city. We've come a long ways from that time and all of you have been really important partners in the conversations to get to where we are today . You have all we've sat and how many community meetings and one on one meetings and group meetings talking about how we transform the site, make sure the stock shows here for the next ten years. And most importantly, think about how these neighborhoods, Globeville to the west, Larry Swans here to the east. Yeah. Are transformed and brought along and really benefit from this project. So this is the next step. You know, this takes the master plan and the zoning puts in motion our ability to fulfill the vision, you know, especially with our partners, the issue and do some of the amazing things that CSU is going to be able to do on this campus. So that's one, too, is this this is important because it really solidifies the importance of our collaboration with our neighborhood partners. And we have many members from our community advisory committee here tonight that you're going to hear from, and they have been instrumental in helping us also get here tonight with the zoning and countless hours spent by by folks that have day jobs and have other things to do. Betty cram selling Avon and being a partner and Dru having a full time job as an architect and John's RPN and many, many folks are here tonight to speak on behalf of this. But, you know, this project's success is driven by the success of the adjoining neighborhoods as well. So the zoning that you're going to vote on tonight is as much about the neighborhoods and making sure they benefit as well from what we're about to do as we move into more specific. So that's all I wanted to say and I just thank you all for your commitment to this effort, to these neighborhoods and to the journey we're on to make the National Western Center one of the foremost kind of places where we're going to solve some of the biggest rural, biggest food issues on the planet. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you both. All right. We have two people signed up, first person and Elizabeth and the second person, David Slutsky.
Speaker 11: Thank you, members of the Council for this opportunity to speak. I wanted to reinforce this is a good segway from what Kelly was saying, the wonderful process of creating a text amendment through this collaboration with members of the neighborhood, and that this is something that will strengthen by example the type of conversations that are so critical to all of Denver, and that this is part of where, as we're hearing people talk more and more, we find the heart and soul of what's going on in the city is first there is the word in a sense. And in this room there are at least five people from the neighborhood, including Elyria, Swanton, Globeville, that participated as in the breakout sessions with the National Western Center Advisory Committee. There are a couple developers that worked in the process one from Globeville, one from Elyria. There's an executive from the National Western Stock Show. There's the city council members that have been loyal to the process. And for all the differences that I have with Councilwoman Monteiro, which are respectful, I really want it to be publicly acknowledged that this National Western Center Citizens Advisory Committee is a mechanism that she championed and created as an effort to bridge the different stakeholders so that we would have these conversations and to build on an understanding of zoning in conversation in the neighborhoods. Is, is, is a great legacy. So I appreciate that. Councilwoman Ortega was very helpful in bringing staff to the breakout sessions and with city council staff posing questions in the course of the discussions, it's helpful. So as we go forward with our new city council too, I hope that they will see that as part of their legacy is the broad conversations, because we have many conversations to have within the national western centered campus in development. But I just wanted to say a very positive put a very positive spotlight on the process that brought us to this in parallel to what the actual arrival of the text amendment, the text, the new the new zoning change that that we have. It is an extraordinary step. And I think it bodes well for working on the vision of the city to see the neighborhood plans, which are the are the foundation of this coming together with the National Western Center plan. And I hope that the conversation can continue building by building, block by block, site by site, in a very creative and friendly conversation as we implement this zoning and make it truly visionary in the process. So of great shout out to where to the whole effort that got us here and looking forward to continuing that is a participatory urban planning element. So 100% for it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Lasky. And you have 6 minutes or.
Speaker 8: Thank you, city council, for all the work you've done. Judy, thank you for the years of work and dedication you've you've given us. You know this. My name is David Lansky. I live a 4930 Logan in Globeville. This ain't about global overnight. You know, this is about the national western that started here back in the early 1900s. And as today, I got to look at this like, oh, you know what they've given us? You know, back when they started, there was nothing in Denver and there was nothing in Globeville. We had a couple of smelters. But as time went on, by the late forties, all through the seventies, you know, the national western got so big with the stockyards and everything, they started up, they opened up a lot of slaughterhouses. We became the beef capital of the United States, and it originated out of the national western. There was a lot of byproducts off off of that. Also, number one was fertilizer, you know, I mean, we were shipped it all over the country. You know, every steak that was eaten in New York, Chicago back then, it came out of Colorado. And another thing that came out of the natural western and out of all these industries was hides. You know, they processed hides, but they had a trade back after World War Two. They couldn't process in the United States anymore. So they had a ship em out of the country and that shipped the finished product back here and it would make whatever. So for a lot of years, you know, they came out of Denver, out of Globeville, that originated out of the national western and created a lot of jobs , you know, a lot of work. And. You know, and I remember. As a little boy sitting up. We couldn't wait to get over the stockyards in the summertime. And you sit and listen to the auctioneer and they would auction off the cattle and the sheep and the hawks. And where we connected, we didn't feel like we were a neighbor to the national west and we felt like we were a partner because all of that product, all them animals, came over what was called a cattle bridge down into Globeville, and they separated off into different packing houses. And, you know, that was really interesting in in the in the national western the sixties to me, that was before the convention center. And we got to see every venue that came through car shows, you name it. It was it was in Globeville. We had the Denver Spurs, a hockey team, and at the same time, we had ice skating at the at the National Western. We us kids had a hockey teams, you know. So I mean, it was it was the National Western has given us so much. I mean, and it can go on and on and on. And, you know, we need this zoning and then we come to the zoning. In as hard as Kelly and Steve and Paul and everybody's worked and they're putting it in place, but they put in place no marijuana. And that's great because when we start looking at the zoning and something got brought to my attention last week, you know, this marijuana industry. They're supposed to let all the dispensaries. I think the grow houses, too, are supposed to let all the neighborhood organizations know. And they've never, ever contacted our organization. Now. I owned I owned a bar at one time and I had to jump through a lot of hoops to get my license. And we need to start enforcing that here. There's no enforcement in Globeville, and we need that if we want to shine with the national Western, if we want to prosper, if this National Western Events Center is going to prosper, we have to do a lot of enforcement and accountability, and we have to clean up our neighborhood. And we need to see what the city needs for us to do. And they need to help us enforce rules and regulations. Because you don't. I don't I can't understand how $1,000,000,000 event center could be right next to, you know, a ghetto where they still pollute the river. And, you know, your children and your grandchildren, your nephews and nieces will come to this event center and walk off a block away and wind up in a dangerous neighborhood. You know, there's just no future in it, you know? And, you know, we need we need we need to work together. And we are working with the National Western. And I've asked them a couple of times what would they like us to do? And our response. But, you know, we're asking the city, what do you want us to do in Globeville? How can we better serve the national Western? How can we make this the best it can be? Because this this national western, this event center is going to. Benefit all of us for years to come, and we want to be part of it. You know what? The other thing we need to do? We need to limit the size of these grow houses. You know, if we don't stop it, we're not going to be able to bring in new development. You know, and and I can't understand why there wasn't regulation like the liquor industry. You know. And nobody partitioned our neighborhood ever. Anyway, that's all I got. And I want to thank you, folks. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Lansky.
Speaker 2: All right. That concludes our speakers. Do we have any questions on 324 as amended? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a couple of questions. And let me ask Steve Nelly first, if you would come forward, Kelly, you might want to sit in the front as well. Steve, you walk through some of the additional documents or press procedures that still need to take place. You talked about the public realm, study design standards and guidelines, site planning, and then construction would be kind of the final. So I know when you and I met last week, you talked about a development agreement. Where does that fall into the process? Or the big picture of all of this that we're dealing with?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think the conversation that we were having was about, you know, things that aren't necessarily in the zone or are necessarily appropriate for the zoning and what other tools may be available. There are a lot of tools available, one of which could be a development agreement with between the city and between the future governing structure. That was my you know, it was one suggestion of a tool that could be used for things that aren't necessarily in the zoning.
Speaker 7: Okay. One of the questions I have about the height issue and we talked about this when we met last week is that. The height is just sort of overall for the site, the height limitations and. This is a 15 year buildout or so of the site. And so I'm just trying to understand why the 15 feet sort of applies across the board. I know that the thinking was so that when the arena is built to have a, you know, a. Free spam roof, if you will, that would allow the height that's needed for that. But I'm a little concerned that if somewhere down the road the city and national western, because the city will own most of the the land right after it's all purchased. And they could potentially just start marketing the 170 acres once it's all acquired and allow buildings to just be built up to that max limit. So I'm looking for what the protections are, if you will, for the neighbors that could turn this into a new, I don't know, a new mega center, if you will. And I mean, to some degree, it's sort of envisioned that way. But I mean, we could have lots of office buildings there or potentially housing on the site, maybe some dorm housing. But I guess I'm wondering where we put some of those limitations that don't allow the whole site to look like 150 acres.
Speaker 9: All right. So there is a transition built in to the zone district and it transitions down to Brayton Boulevard, down to five stories or 70 feet along Brighton Boulevard. And then on the east side of Brighton Boulevard, there's different zoning. It allows up to three stories. And on the just east of that alley is the residential area. So the intent of that transition is to provide those protections and transition the height down to the residential area of Elyria. So it's not 150 feet across the entire site. There are transitions built in. Now, as far as a new program and marketing the site, I might turn that over to Kelly to to talk about what that means in the future.
Speaker 7: I'm sure.
Speaker 10: Councilwoman. So the you know, the question really is how do we kind of protect the integrity of the plant itself? And and really, you refer to the master plan, right? The master plan, which we worked closely with the neighbors on and the national Western and sea issue. All our partners, you know, shows the the adjacencies of the buildings that are required to fulfill the program of all the partners, the relationships of those buildings to one another, the relationships of those buildings to the adjoining neighborhoods, whether it be Brighton Boulevard or the River or to the Coliseum to the south. And, you know, although you know what for build out this this center is anticipated to be 270 acres, which seems large, you know, for a site that's close to downtown. When you think about the scale of these buildings and the operational components that these buildings have to accommodate, both from the national, western and other big events, it's not that much land in terms of what we see. There's not like going to be a lot of extra land beyond the core program on the site itself for large, massive high rises and what have you. I think, you know, we are going through a process with the Community Advisory Committee and with all our partners to think about how do you truly activate the site for year round uses? But all those uses are going to have to be complementary to the core vision of CSU and the National Western in the city as partners in creating this year round destination. So we have a set of guiding principles that will measure all our uses against. We have the needs of our of our tenants, our anchor tenants like CSU in the National Western that have to be met. So I'm confident as we work through this together and that will require coming back to council many, many times as we go through this, that we'll, you know, we're going to stay true to the master plan as envisioned.
Speaker 7: So which of those additional things that need to be done will come back to city council? Is it I mean, because the master plan is not binding like zoning is. So what what additional approvals will be brought back to city council.
Speaker 10: So you know, obviously we will have to come back to work for tonight's exercise were only zoning those parcels that are owned by either the city or the national western. So we will come back to council for when additional land is acquired for the campus. So every time we come back, we'll have to be coming to council for for those actions. The second would be, I think we've shown that we're going to be collaborative and deliberative with council because we're so tied to making sure that the neighborhoods are a part of this conversation, whether it's contracts we issue to actually build the site or it's workforce development opportunities or it's housing at the station, near the station, at the National Western, whatever it may be, there's going to be a lot of interactions with council. And and I want to go back to Steve's, you know, example of a development agreement. We've toyed with the idea do we create some sort of a development agreement that memorializes in contract? That's the obligations that we need to do over the course of the phase development of the site. So I think that's a conversation we want to entertain with with council as well. I mean, we're we're going to look at all the different tools we have at our disposal. But ultimately, we've got to put in motion documents that hold us accountable for actually delivering the project. So I you know, we'll be coming back to council a lot in the course of at least the next four years.
Speaker 7: So if I may continue, Mr. President, I have one more question. So I know there have been some discussions about a community benefit agreement and some of the things that should be part of that are should include, you know, provisions for job training and hiring, goals of people in the neighborhood, land leases, tenant leases that might include , you know, opportunities where people in the community own some of the land that can be rented, things like including opportunities for people who are small business owners in the neighborhood to benefit from some of the relationships and contracting opportunities with National Western. So where does a community benefit agreement fit into the big picture? Do you see it as part of the development agreement? Where where does that fall? And kind of where where is that in the process in terms of conversations with the neighborhood?
Speaker 10: So we you know, we actually presented at a neighbor at a community advisory committee meeting based on ongoing conversations. With many members of the committee of the National Western Center Committee about how do we link in in as deliberate a way possible the the benefits of the two neighborhood plans and that of the national Western that those things work together are in tandem. And so I actually threw out the idea based on just kind of my own kind of national view of what's going on around the country, an idea of a of an MRU. You know, I've had a series of meetings with, you know, and conversations with members of the Community Advisory Committee, and that has evolved. I think the conversation has evolved. We actually had a really good meeting, what, a couple of weeks ago with the members of the National Western Center Advisory Committee about, you know, what's in the mow you now. And we actually talked about these ideas of implementation committees for the two neighborhoods and the feedback we we've gotten from a variety of groups is maybe that's not the way to go. So we're, we're right now we're, we're listening and we're looking at meeting with all the different groups in those two in those neighborhoods, having constant ways for them to provide feedback on budgeting, on, on prioritization of projects within their given neighborhood plans. So I've tried to signal or we've tried to signal that we're open. We're not going to lock ourselves into any one method of of doing business. We're going to find different ways to meet them where they are. And that if that means going to the churches are going to the schools or what have you, that's what we're going to do to get feedback, compile all that feedback, and then work with council representatives, work with the mayor's office to then build a work plan . And at the end of the day, this is all about execution. It's all about implementing what people have spent their time doing. So we're trying to build systems that hold us accountable, hold the neighborhoods collectively accountable with us through shared intent, through shared purpose to deliver. And that at every point, at any given time during the year, we can look at the list and say, we've got these ten things down, we got three more to do. Here's what we're going to do so everybody can follow along. So the memo you just to close this out is is evolving. It's going to actually, based on our last conversation, turn into a letter because the chant, one of the challenges we were having with the image use who signs the Matthew who rep who can represent the neighborhoods. So we're going to do a letter and I'm going to be I've been sharing drafts of the memo. You were going to convert it into a letter over the next week or two, and I'm going to send that back out to the group and get feedback.
Speaker 7: So who who does that email you? Who who is it between? Is it between the city or between the city and national western and the neighborhoods?
Speaker 10: So good question. So the this isn't just about the national western. There are six projects that are all where we're aligning the planning and implementation of those six project. This is about how do we link the neighborhood plans which are which are part of our six to the other projects that we're managing for shared benefit, right. So that the intent of what was in my view and now is probably going to become a letter shows that shared intent of how all these six projects are aligned, how they're linked and then our commitment to the neighborhoods that these things are going to happen together. So I just got your list, Councilwoman, of things you'd like to see. And so we'll talk about how we build. Some of those things are already kind of built in, but we'll make them more specific and keep sharing that with the community and get to a place where folks are comfortable with the letter. And then we're going to use that as a way to hold it up and say, here's what this is our shared understanding of what we're trying to do together. And then that gets immortalized ultimately in contracts, in workforce development centers and in the things that will be coming back to this body for over the course of time , that become more legal in nature and more binding in nature.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Karen. Yep.
Speaker 2: Can someone can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. And, Mr. President, I'm sorry. That was another one of those bad habits formed in council monitor as era. Two areas of question probably for Steve, but you can defer to Kelly one about use and two about parking. And I'm very much in the code weeds just for folks. No, because I mean, I think that the this is one of those things where the PowerPoint doesn't have a lot of anything in it. So you have to really look at the code language in terms of uses. I see the information about husbandry, plant and animal husbandry. I actually don't see anything about manufacturing or production, and I'm concerned about that because in theory, potentially, you may want to be doing something. I mean, maybe not animal slaughter, but maybe other kinds of food production package. I just am curious whether or not we've thought far enough ahead to include the kinds of ancillary things we may want to be doing related to the CSU type activities. Because I just and maybe I'm just not seeing them.
Speaker 9: You're just not seeing it. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 9: So manufacturing at a custom level is is allowed. Manufacturing at general level is allowed manufacturing at a heavy level. And this is like the noxious stuff that's typically that use is only allowed in our industrial zone districts. That is not allowed.
Speaker 4: So custom instruction can because I can't find it. So if you can point me to the.
Speaker 9: Situation, if you are seeing the agricultural uses, then you need to turn back a few pages. It'd be under the manufacturing use category.
Speaker 7: I've got it here if you want to look.
Speaker 4: Okay. Just if you give me a section number you don't have. Okay? All right. Like 11 point. Three point. Okay. I see the charts, but I don't see the actual language section. You know, there's the.
Speaker 9: So are you, are you looking for the use definition.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Well you have, I mean there's quite a few yet definitions that may be the right.
Speaker 9: So we did not amend the use. So you have the red lines as well?
Speaker 4: I think so. I'm looking at what's in our computer systems.
Speaker 9: Right. So you're only seeing what was amended. We did not amend the use definition of manufacture.
Speaker 4: That's why I can't see it, because you're referencing it, but you're not changing any language. So there's nothing red lines. All right. That's very helpful. So. And then which and is it is it IMX or switch which definition in particular you were saying it's the general and the custom.
Speaker 9: Right. So general and custom manufacturing fabrication and assembly are allowed. However, manufacturing fabrication assembly heavy is not allowed.
Speaker 4: Got it. Thank you very much for that clarification. So the other question I had was about parking. So in the chart that, you know, the way that this reads for members of the public is that there's an existing chart that talks about the different uses and then it talks about what parking is required. And then it has all of the different campuses. And we've added a new column for this campus, but there's a lot of red line related to parking requirements. So what I'm trying to understand is, is every time you have a red line related to a parking requirement, does it then apply to all of the campus zone districts ? Because that's kind of the way it looks. It looks like it applies to it looks like we're changing it for all the campuses. Right. And so if you can explain that to me.
Speaker 9: Right. So where do you see red line for parking standards that use was not is not permitted in the other campus zone districts.
Speaker 4: I see. So you had to invent a standard.
Speaker 9: So we had to introduce the parking requirement because we're now allowing it in Campus National Research Center. So in all of our use tables throughout the code, if the use is not allowed, we don't put a parking requirement there. But to save space, it's not necessary.
Speaker 4: Okay. Got it. And then the last question and this is a bigger picture question is just I'm curious about doing parking in this way per use. And so we don't know all the uses that are going to be on this site. And I don't think you're going to have each individual building parking itself. Right. So I'm a little curious about the entire approach to parking and why we're using what I think is an approach much more designed for. Okay. Each building on this block is going to be developed and it will have its own parking requirement. In this case, we may be collective izing, and I'm just concerned about whether we're going to actually find ourselves within a margin of these parking requirements, but perhaps not exact. We're going to build a garage, for example, and then we're going to have a use. So I guess I'm just curious why this approach at all.
Speaker 9: Right. So most all of our uses have minimum parking requirements. Oftentimes, developers build more than that minimum. These minimum parking requirements are consistent with our urban centers and districts with their fairly low minimum parking requirements and will likely be the parking will likely be exceeded. Campus zone districts are treated as one zoned lot, one site, so a use here can put it's parking way over here. And so collectively, if you add up all of the square footage of the uses, then you get your minimum parking requirement. And that needs to be built on that campus somewhere. And likely it will be actually because the minimums are are low.
Speaker 4: Okay. So just I mean, it's kind of like the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Has someone added up all the square footage for the various types that we think we may have in the master plan that we adopted and compared it to the parking to see how they compare? Yeah. I mean, we had a whole, you know, bit of brain damage about the parking asks in a, you know, a generation ago, you know, we couldn't do the National Western Center because the parking requirements were so great that they needed, you know, hundreds more acres. We brought that back down to, you know, reality. But I just I guess I'm just curious if someone's compared the two.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So I've looked into comparing the two. It's an exact science because again, this is this is a minimum requirement. And what you're talking about is more market demand. And so we like to right size the minimum requirement. So it is below the market demand, not way above the market demands. We're not requiring way more parking to be built than what is demanded. And so Kelley can probably speak to a lot of parking studies that are upcoming at the National Western related to the market side, not the requirement side that.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So, Kelley, do you know in advance that these requirements are compact? Tebow with a parking study that we haven't done yet.
Speaker 10: Well, this is you know, we talk. It's a great question. I mean, it's it's you know, we talk about it in the master plan and it continues to be an ongoing conversation. And it also represents an opportunity because the parking studies that we're about to enter into are about getting to the right number and the right mix , using the right resources. And it's not just about looking at the campus in in isolation. It's about what's going on past the boundaries of the campus itself, the impact of having four commuter rail stations with literally within a mile, mile and a half of this center. And what might a circulator, as an example, look like, not just for picking folks up from those four stations, but what if you were to introduce an opportunity for, as an example, people to park downtown at the U.S. and and enjoy downtown as they came to the national restaurant? So the study is really starting to hone in on the specific mix of parking resources will need for the campus, but also overlaying the opportunity to leverage either existing assets that exist outside the campus or new assets that are just being built like RTD. So the study that will go through over the next year will really start to hone in on the right combination of parking needs for this center.
Speaker 4: Great. And thank you, Mr. President. Performance. Let me just close it out then by saying so you feel okay committing to parking now before this is all that I do. Okay, thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Kathryn Lopez.
Speaker 8: Oh.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry for going around. Stay away from me. I've got to get the. So this site and the zoning, I'm thinking of, you know, some of the issues and some of the things that have come up in the past and possible uses for the site, things that folks have wanted in the past. Right away I start thinking about grocery store now. Yes, this is campus. Yes, it's structural, but it's also food. Right. And so I'm wondering if there is if one that's allowed by that, that's an allowed use or permitted use. What kind of grocery store is allowed? What isn't? And also, have there been any discussions? And if you want to just elaborate on that, because I know that's a big need in the community, a need that's been going on for about 40, 50 years.
Speaker 10: I think the standard is every meeting we talk about grocery stores and it's been a healthy conversation and look specific to the national western. You know, the National Western's not going to solve that grocery needs for these neighborhoods. Right. But it can be part of the solution. So one of the components obviously was sea issues, involvement. There's a whole range of things that can happen. But specifically, we're looking at converting the 19 or nine stadium arena, restoring that building to its its luster and converting that into our version of the Pike Street market. If you've been to Seattle, you know, but for us, it would be all Colorado based products. And I think there's a huge opportunity for the local residents of Coalville response here to work with them and ready to start. If they want to start a business and they want to be in the food business, incubate them in the growth event of a business within the 19 or nine building. So that's one opportunity. But we are actually it's a much broader conversation because the the the food desert extends beyond Globeville various wants here to the east. Right. And so I think working with OPD and working with CPD and the residents really getting to the range of options. And then at the again, just as I said previously, it's about implementing and not waiting for all the packages to be done in terms of grocery. But what can we do incrementally to start to get services, basic services in these neighborhoods now? And I think we've got to get to build some consensus around that. So we're going to do that in the National Western Center will be part of that conversation.
Speaker 5: Can I follow up with that? Thank you, Mr. President. And and I really appreciate you expanding on that. I think that's a wonderful idea for the exchange building. And I do I am aware that the food desert is huge. It extends into Commerce City, actually. However, I think that's this is the biggest discussion in the most significant discussion of land use that we've had in this area in a very long time, notwithstanding the the neighborhood plans that just passed successfully. But I think that's an opportunity. When you look at the specialty market, you say absolutely. You know, absolutely. It provides jobs, provides business opportunity, meets a need. But unless the exchange accepts snap food stamps, it's you know, you were also looking at a different model. Right. And a more traditional model. It doesn't have to be huge. But I'm wondering, you know, if we could actually achieve that. Yes. It won't address the needs for the whole area, but at least it'll address one black out here. And hopefully those discussions are taking place on that site because unless we do something with that site, I don't see very much land out there that we can just convert into, you know, something that would have a grocery store. I mean, anyway, I just wanted to ask that question. Just throw it out there. But I do appreciate the answer in the thinking forward on that, the forward thinking on it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Just one last comment. Actually, it's kind of a question slash comment. Kelly, I'm assuming that in the. The Community Benefit agreement. The issue of truck traffic and especially construction traffic from the site and air quality issues. Those will all be covered. Can you speak to that?
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 7: You're assuming that some of this construction will be going on the same time. We're going to see some of the I-70 construction and trying to keep truck traffic out of the neighborhood is going to be a really big deal to make sure that, you know, we're all working together to address that.
Speaker 10: So yeah, I mean, obviously any one of our challenges will be and this isn't just for the national western, but conceivably could have multiple large construction projects happening in this region of the city at the same time. So as an example, it's one of the reasons why we're pushing so hard to get Brighton Boulevard improved in advance of both the National Western and I-70 projects beginning so that we do have a route coming out from the South as as an option. You know, we're accelerating in our conversations about Washington Street. We're going to have a technical session this summer on Washington and start to look for ways we can advance Washington Street improvements for the Denver portion, collaborating with our neighbors to the north. So, look, those are all going to be part of our commitment, right, to the neighborhoods that we're going to work with them on each of these issues. And and I think it's one of the benefits, again, back to the National Western about a phase development. So as we start to focus on the phases, right, we'll be able to be very deliberate about how we get construction traffic into the site, how it leaves versus the whole site being under construction at one time. So you know that that's just a common practice that will work with the neighborhoods on so that they know and that their neighbors know how we're going to tackle that project. And my my expectation will be as well, we'll work with CDOT, we'll work with RTD on any project that's going on. And will will bring forward ideas to the neighborhoods of of how we move in and out of these neighborhoods and what the sequencing looks like. And that will hopefully arrive at a at a reasonable approach for each of these projects. But I mean, that's just good project management practice.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Three other questions. 324 as amended. Seen none. Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a little bit confused because this was council bill. This is for Council Bill 324 that if voted on, creates a new zone district called the Campus National Western Center. Is that correct? Okay. So then the next bill that we will look at, 325 will get into see will do an under another explanation about the actual official map amendments. Is that correct? Okay. So I want to say that I completely support this going forward, knowing that we're going to talk about the next Bill 325 to get into more specifics about the the amendments to as a reflection of our actual master plan. And so I would encourage my colleagues to support this as well so we can go on to the next bill and have another conversation about those pieces. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I'm just going to make brief comments that will apply to both bills, because I think many of the comments from the public will probably be similar as well. I think what's important about this is we we all we're very vocal about national western talking about moving away. And Denver stepped up and has worked very closely with National Western to do everything possible to keep National Western here to look at the site in a way that we've never really looked at it. And the work that Kelly has done with the support of the administration to pull all of these six projects together and interweave them all so that they all interfaced with one another, has been a critical part of looking at this quadrant of the city, having a binding agreement that will outlive all of us because National Western will be here for another 100 years and the relationship to the community becomes really important and ensuring very similar to when the area campus came in and, you know, impacted residents that lived there. And there were some very solid agreements that were worked out with the West Side community. So I think that's very important as part of the the build out of this site of national Western. I mean, clearly, it's something that will benefit the city. They already do. But I think with some of the other partners that are now coming into play with this site will be. Unlike what we've seen. And I think the opportunities are are unlimited, but how we manage them becomes important. And that's where an agreement with the community becomes an important part. I mean, the fact that we have submitted our RTA application and we're waiting to hear on that we're going to the ballot with a request to allow the car rental tax and the lodgers tax to be extended to help pay for the new roads and to build a couple of new buildings and to acquire some additional land clearly creates incredible opportunities for this city, and I'm excited about that. But I also want to continue to make sure we're doing the right thing for these neighborhoods, which will be severely impacted with construction. And when you start adding I-70 in and what's going to happen, you know, with the truck traffic from you know, from that project, it the the impacts to these neighborhoods are going to be unprecedented. And so I just want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for her efforts in working with the neighborhoods and in being part of the whole national Western process. I know Councilman Brooks will continue to be engaged in these efforts as well as will my office. And I just want to thank you all for your hard work in the neighborhood, folks, for their input in their ongoing efforts in working through these issues. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. My comments will apply to both as well, too, I think. Well, let's just say this. I'm excited to see this zone district format very, very excited because this is a real deal and this is the real thing. And this is almost a well, this is an epitome of your work. There's a lot of things that are in play here. And I think it's a tremendous opportunity when you think of jobs, when you think of business, when you think of culture, when you think of who we are. And it's a tremendous, tremendous opportunity, as I said in my previous comments, to address one of those needs. Right. Oh, my God. With the history, with with the opportunity that's there, with the need in the neighborhood, I think it really, really it could be a game changer. So I'm excited to support this excited to see this go. I can't wait to be able to see a concert there or to go see the new the new structural facilities. The area. I mean, one of the things that was really helpful was when Mr. Andrews took us around and showed us showed us those areas. So, you know, I could almost visualize what those home districts look like in the areas that we were taking a look at on the tour. So I'm happy to support this. And in the follow up to. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilman Brown.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks.
Speaker 0: For all of you in the room who have been involved.
Speaker 8: In this. It's been a long road, really. A lot of opinions from diverse groups. No doubt this is a massive, bold and ambitious plan. And what I like about it, it's why it is a plan is not rigid. It's not rigid. It's going to change. It's going to evolve over the next decade and the decade after that. But at its foundation is a love affair.
Speaker 0: That most of us I hope all of us, but most of us have with our Western roots, our Western heritage and the pioneer spirit.
Speaker 8: And David, you were right when you said that.
Speaker 0: It is hard that this plan really shows an.
Speaker 8: Appreciation and respect for local history, local history that you have observed up close and personal.
Speaker 0: This plan, really? Looks back.
Speaker 8: But at the same time, it looks forward. With an exciting and vibrant.
Speaker 0: And world class vision. And I only hope that in November that our residents.
Speaker 8: Would will cowboy and cowgirl up.
Speaker 5: And support this on the ballot.
Speaker 8: And thank you for bringing here tonight. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Any other comments? 324 as amended. Seen none. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Montero. I Nevitt. I Ortega. Hi, Rob Brooks. Hi, Brown. I can eat Lemon Lopez. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the vote. You announced the results tonight. Tonight's 324, as amended, has passed. All right. Next, we're moving on to Council Bill 325. Council member, will you please put 325 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Mr. President. Be my pleasure. I move the companion bill to the bill. 324 Council Bill 325 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and second in a public hearing for council bill 325 is now open. May we have staff report?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Steve Valley with community planning and development. This is the companion bill. Companion bill. Thanks for mentioning that number. This is the map portion of the text that we just discussed. So we're mapping it. We're landing the text at the National Western Center. So again, the national others are partners CSU, the West National, Western SOC, so City of Denver, History, Colorado and Denver Museum of Nature and Science. In addition to the National Western Center Citizens Advisory Committee of all contributed to this effort. This MAP amendment was initiated by Brad McKinnon, executive director of Community Planning and Development, and Kelly, lead executive director of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. So here's the map. We are in Council District nine in the Elyria, Swansea statistical neighborhood. Zooming down to the proposed area. It's just over 50 acres in the the proposal to rezone from multiple zone districts, including the general industrial iby the industrial mixed use with the max of three stories, IMAX three and the campus entertainment ICMP and all with a use overlay along billboards. Let's take all of those in districts to see MP nwc you oh to the campus national western center and continuing to allow the billboard use overlay of the map that you see the properties shaded in blue are the proposed areas to be zoned.
|
Bill
|
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code creating a new zone district, Campus-National Western Center CMP-NWC, comprised of building forms and allowed uses consistent with the vision identified in the National Western Center Master Plan in Council District 9 (2015I-00066). (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code creating a new zone district, Campus-National Western Center CMP-NWC, comprised of building forms and allowed uses consistent with the vision identified in the National Western Center Master Plan in Council District 9 (2015I-00066). IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07062015_15-0325
|
Speaker 9: Let's take all of those in districts to see MP nwc you oh to the campus national western center and continuing to allow the billboard use overlay of the map that you see the properties shaded in blue are the proposed areas to be zoned. Again. Here he is in blue. Those areas be zoned as legal descriptions of other properties owned by the city or the national or the Western Structure Association are properly defined and as the city acquires properties within the National Western Center area. Additional map amendments to resume properties to CFP and the NWC will be brought before City Council. So this is one of many MAP amendments for the National Western Center. So the public process is the same. We talk about the map and text together. But all notices public notice for planning board the for the public hearing were emailed to all Arnaud's and all city council members. Signs were posted throughout subject rezoning say and then for the public hearing tonight. Notice was emailed to all Arnaud's and all city council members and signs were posted throughout the subject rezoning site, the same condition applied. So Planning Board did recommend approval unanimously with a condition that City Council acknowledge and address the concerns expressed by the neighborhood stakeholders with regards to neighborhood involvement and governance and community equity. The existing land use surrounding the proposed rezoning is the land use consists of vacant park parking and entertainment and cultural uses, and then the surrounding area is largely industrial, with nearby residential in the area Swansea and across the South Platte River in Globeville. So the criteria for review for a map amendment consistency was adopted plans uniform to district regulations to further the public safety and welfare justifying circumstance um consistency with neighborhood context and district purpose and intent. So again, there are five plans that apply to this site. The proposed map amendment is consistent with many objectives and strategies found in comp plan 2000, as detailed in the staff report and highlighted on this slide, promoting the infill and designing mixed use communities by mapping this zone district. The signature would allow for more density at the future transit station and would celebrate the existing focal point of the National Western. In Denver. The venues concept for Blueprint Denver is entertainment, cultural exhibition, area of change and the details as to how the proposed map move is consistent with the objectives of blueprints detailed in your staff report highlighted here on the map. As you can see, it's all an area of change and it's all entertainment. Cultural Exhibition. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan also applies, as I mentioned, previously proposed map is consistent with many of the strategies as detailed in the staff report, some of the key recommendations from the global plan. Talk about implementing the build out in the National Western Center. So embracing the river, providing better access to resources, improving educational opportunities. All uses are allowed in this ENP National Research Center associated with education and community resources. And then the another key recommendation is to introduce new multimodal connections over the river to the National Western Center, which is critical to the build out of this center. Hillary's wants a neighborhood plan, so the proposed map movement is consistent with many objectives and strategies found within the plan. As detailed in your staff report, as you can see by the the map, it's encouraging the development of the key sites, including National Western Center. Also, the plan allows building heights that deal, outgoing heights, should accommodate the redevelopment of the National Western Center and that two d should be targeted adjacent to the station. So the by mapping copy and wc the uses that would be allowed and the intensity of uses meet the goals and strategies of the leaders. Once an airplane. The proposed map movement is consistent many objectives and strategies found in the National Western Center Master Plan, as detailed in the staff report, providing a variety of programs, fostering regeneration and driving new tourism. This MAP amendment will result in uniform regulations applicable to all new buildings and uses within the land mapped. See MP NWC. This MAP movement furthers the public health, safety and general welfare of Denver residents as they provide for implementation and revitalization of the National Western Center as identified in the city's adopted plans. The justifying circumstance for the proposed map is the land or its surrounding environs. It's changed or is changing to such a degree that is in the public interest to encourage the redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character of the area. A lot of the discussion we've had, a lot of the impetus and momentum behind build out of the National Western Center is a justifying circumstance in itself. There's more detail confined in your staff report than inconsistency with the neighborhood context zone district person. In turn, the proposed map movement would lead to development that is consistent with the campus context description, which was specifically written for the National Western Center. And so the purpose and intent is met by and is consistent by mapping it at the National Western Center site as proposed. So with that, CBT recommends approval based on finding that all criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have eight speakers for this and I will call the first five and. Hayes Paul Andrews, Johns, EPA and Betty Cram, Drew Dutcher so those five can make their way up to the front pew. And the remaining three I will call up as we move through that. And, Ms.. Hays, you may go ahead and begin your remarks.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council my name is Ann Hayes. I'm a resident of Denver. I'm also a member of the National Western Citizens Advisory Committee. I also am with a company who owns 14 acres on Brighton Boulevard that we intend to redevelop. I also have been very involved in the working group for Brighton Boulevard and on the board of the newly formed General Improvement District for Reno. I am here to just tell you that I totally support Bill 325 and the rezoning of these properties. I think that the rezoning, as Kelly and Steve have mentioned, is an important next step in bringing this project forward and bringing the benefits to the adjacent neighborhoods that will come from that and and into the entire city with the redevelopment of this property. But I also think it's important to note from my perspective that this forward momentum and rezone also gives encouragement to developers and business investment nearby, such as ourselves, that can count on the fact that this is going to happen likely in the future. And so therefore we are willing to spend our money in improving those properties and the people who we bring on to the property in our development who will be creating new businesses. So that will also bring opportunity and prosperity to the adjacent neighborhoods as well. Thank.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Paul Anders.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of Council. My name's Paul Andrews. My address is 4655 Humboldt Street. I'm here tonight as the CEO of the Nation of Western Stock Show. We are the landowner for portions of the property in question this evening, and we fully support the rezoning of our property to the National Western Center Zone District. Think you also have supportive letters from partners of the project that have been handed out to you? CSU, The Museum of Nature and Science and History, Colorado. Just like to make note of that, the proposed rezoning will assist in the implementation of the National Western Center Master Plan that you adopted in March of this year. The Nation of Western Center Master Plan, as you know, envisions a complex that focuses on the research and animal husbandry, agriculture, retail and entertainment for 365 days a year. It will also continue the dominance of the National Western Stock Show as the world's leading livestock show that celebrates our Western heritage. Not all of these uses are possible with our existing industrial zoning. Category three Zoning this evening is one more step towards the implementation of the National Western Center vision, and we encourage your support. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, John Sabian.
Speaker 8: Good evening. This is the second time that I'm here on behalf of the national western. And a neighbor of ours. Dave, asked us. Asked me, Brother, how can you support an effort that's pissed in your backyard for the last eight years? And I said, Well, if you have gone through the process, as we have in the last two years or so. It's been enlightening and. The term Western heritage has different meanings to different people, positive and negative. I think we're at the point in that level of Western history where we can start separating the facts from generalities. I feel what we have at hand with the national Western efforts, the city and county of Denver's efforts and the neighborhood effort that's gone into. This whole process is. An awakening as to the possibilities that await not just the national western, the city and county of Denver, but all the neighborhoods around, not just Globeville, Elyria and Swansea , but also Cole. Whittier. Curtis Park. Mm hmm. And even some of the Rhino Place, the new ballpark neighborhoods. It's going to benefit a lot of people. Hopefully it will benefit Globeville and Swansea the most, because that's our self-interest. With the establishment of the educational effort by CSU and the history, people involved will be able to teach our young kids the true aspects of Western history. Both negative and positive. But more importantly, I see this as a golden opportunity, the best opportunity I've seen. In the last 80 years for little kids growing up. Especially close to that area to have opportunities to get into things that we never dreamed of could happen. The whole idea of food science, water plant and animal husbandry, food and the next generation is going to be a big item. Mr. Lopez hit the nail on the head, and we can teach our kids through this process those great possibilities. And I urge you to support this effort. We're going to be here again. JUERGENS You're going to see more of me. I promise you that. And I think that we can go forward in a real positive effort, working with all the people that we have been. It's been very enlightening to me, and I've enjoyed it very much, and I look forward to taking on the next bull by the horns.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Betty Graham.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much. And thank you, Mr. President. And City Council. My name is Betty Cram and I have lived in the neighborhood for a long time and I'm a proud supporter and always will be of the National Western. And I've been to many, many shows and I worked on the Yards and I also worked at the Livestock Exchange Building and at the commission companies. And it was a great, great time when when the stock show got ready to come to town, it was like magic. Many of the people were from the community and from the community. In fact, I think sometimes it was the only job they had all year was when they went to work at the stock show. And a lot of the ladies would always make sure they'd always give up their bedrooms and they all ran out their rooms to people as the stock shocking suction man came in. They would always there was a lot of people rented out a lot of rooms to the stock show people. And so in town, when the stock show came to town, it was like magic. Then we had a little scare because we thought we might lose the structure. It was very, very frightening. And we worked hard. We got a lot of signatures. And the and I hope it helped prove that we really thought a lot to have them stay. Then we got CSU coming on board with us, and I think that's going to be one of the greatest things there is. I was a little disappointed one day when I saw that they said there's parts of Denver they don't think we ought to be called Top Cow Town. They there was a lot of people don't even know our area of town. It's an old, old area. It's not a rich area, but it's got some of the most wonderful people you could ever know that live in that area. And they have that's what brought the name in the first place. When I was working down there on the plains in the fall, the cattle would come into town from the farm, from the farms and from the ranches. We'd sometimes have 40,000 cattle coming in one day on the on the trains and in and then the in on in the end, shipped in. So it was really it was a proper name. And I will always say it is the cow town. And I'm so glad we still call it a cow down. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Next is Drew Decker. And as Drew comes up, I'll call the last three speakers Micki Zeppelin, Kim, Q, Sarah and and Elizabeth. So those three can make their way up to the front pew and that's it. You can go ahead.
Speaker 0: Hi. Hi. Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Drew Dutcher. I live in the Elyria neighborhood. I've been very involved in the National Western Planning, as well as the neighborhood plans for Larry, Swansea and also in Globeville. I do want to say that the resident participation among the also the National Western Citizens Advisory Committee, I think the residential participation for the stock show of the National Western Center has been really great and they've really reached out and there's been a lot of enthusiasm. I think there's really an effort to involve the community. But so so I think that that that that has been that has been great. But there's a new vision here, I think a very unique vision that's never been tried anywhere else. It's not just another stock show. It's the presence of the CSU and the History Colorado and the Museum of Nature and Science is something totally different. Nobody really knows what this will be like, and that's very exciting. This will be unique in the nation and probably unique in the in the world. I think that we have a chance to change the history where we may have we no longer isolate institutions from people with this new vision. There's enormous potential here. And I enthusiastically support the campaign for the the National Western Center. Thanks very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Maggie Zeppelin.
Speaker 0: Good evening. I'm Mickey Zeppelin. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and also want to express my thanks to all of this council for the support that we received from the council in terms of Rhino, in terms of any number of projects, and particularly to Judy Monteiro, who's really led the effort to make the northern section of the city really what it is. We keep hearing about it, the hearings before us, for really also a recognition of Judy's efforts, as is Union Station and other areas of the city. So thank you, Judy, so much. I strongly believe in the catalytic effect of the national western in terms of what it does for the city and particularly for the neighborhoods. I guess I wouldn't be wearing this silly shirt if I didn't believe that that was the case. But I catalytic in the part as a catalytic in the catalytic goods. Obviously, some sort of zoning is necessary and just to basically set the ground rules for what's happening. My concern is that although this is a good start, it not be the end. This is an evolving process. We're talking about a ten or 15 year development cycle. And I think it's important that we not use this zoning to use a Western term as a corral, as basically closing it in, but looking look at it as a free range. There's a lot of opportunities that will be coming up, a lot of opportunities in the neighborhood. The neighborhoods really have been kind of the wasteland in a sense for the last 50 years or so. And I think it's time that we really the Council and the National Western really work together. The funds from the seed tax, etc., are confined to this zoned area. So I think we need to be open to basically look at some possible expansion in terms of the area. Their needs for that really conserve both the national western and the neighborhood. And we need to seize those opportunities. We need to make it a real campus. We need to get rid of fences and we need to break down those barriers that now are part of national western and open it up to not only the neighborhoods in the city, but the whole country. Thank you. And I support the zoning as a first step.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Kim Kucera.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Kim. Sarah. My address is 1660 Lincoln. And I'm here reading a letter on behalf of a member of community who could not be here this evening. It says, As I am out of town, I appreciate my comments being read into the record. My name is Vernon L.
Speaker 7: Hill.
Speaker 4: Managing partner of GE Properties 810 to 870 East 50th Avenue, Denver 80216. The business property consisting of 150,000.
Speaker 6: Square feet, is one of the success stories of Globeville.
Speaker 7: Having been a.
Speaker 4: Significant part of the meatpacking, his meatpacking history from the 1920s to 1950s. It has since been repurposed into three successful and thriving meat, seafood and produce small businesses employing over 60 people. I have worked in Globeville since 1984, owning a commercial and industrial construction company and have seen the changes in Globeville over the years. Because of my dedication and commitment to this community. I have given extensive time and effort as a member of the Globeville Steering Committee, National Western Center, Citizen Advisory Committee and Globeville Civic Association. When I spoke at the Planning Board meeting regarding the National Western Center rezoning, I presented concerns in the form of a draft memorandum of Understanding for the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. While expressing my support for the zoning changes, I was gratified with the Planning Board's conditional approval.
Speaker 7: To.
Speaker 4: Condition attached to their approval that the City Council acknowledge and address the concerns expressed by the neighborhood stakeholders with regards to neighborhood involvement in governance and community equity. Thus my comments 2016 North North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative Budget. In meeting with Kelley Lead, it was encouraging to hear of the projects for Globeville that he is considering to include in the 2016 budget. He also has the list of budget items requested by the Globeville Civic Association and will be interesting to see how the overall budget.
Speaker 7: Will be structured.
Speaker 4: We look forward to receiving the 2016 budget summary as we move forward in the aggressive implementation of the Globeville plan. Memorandum of Understanding. It was my hope to have this completed prior to today's meeting, Kelley Lead received a copy of the Globeville Civic Association, proposed.
Speaker 7: MRU, and likewise Kelley presented.
Speaker 4: In memo you draft from the DCC. I requested that Keller review and align both drafts to meet the needs of the Globeville Civic Association and North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. I am in favor of the suggested change to the statement of commitment signed by Mayor Hancock, which would be a strong moral commitment to the community. The development of the National Western Center has the potential to bring historic, unprecedented transformation beyond the National Western Center boundaries and hopefully into the surrounding neighborhoods of Globeville, Elyria and Swansea. I request the continued support and input of City Council and I am in favor of moving forward on the National Western Center zoning request. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: And Lizbeth.
Speaker 11: Hi. And Elizabeth National, Globeville. And I'm on the National Chester Senior Citizens Advisory Committee. I want to speak in favor of the MAP Amendment and to the synergistic, the perpetual synergistic relationship between the text amendment, the text and the map relationship as we go forward as the dynamic. And that I think that the two memorialize the history of these changes, I think would be a great idea. Kelly Lead once made the comment that we ought to write a book on what they discovered in trying to find the boundaries of these properties and that kind of thing. And I think that there is something important there, and I hope that that is understood to be part of the legacy and that there are stories there. And I hope somewhere a mechanism can be created to provide a little grant for the History Colorado and the NDDC to memorialize this. And to Steve Nally in the Planning Department to talk about the foundational breakthroughs in presenting zoning, through learning about presenting critical paths versus details and the magnificent process discoveries. And so I want to support the MAP agreement, the MAP amendments, the map, the creation of the map zoning, and also recognize that there is work to be done , partly because our city workers have discovered these mysteries and these incredible historical uncertainties. And that part of this, the excitement of what can become a legacy project like the National Western that can revitalize an area has to do with this history that even precedes when the boundaries were born to the original indigenous people that are somewhat neglected in the conversations. And there's a lot to be discovered there. So I would just want to say that this is a moment where I feel we're putting a touchstone in place as we move forward. Next becomes building and the concepts and the design and preserving the flexibility relative to the things that can be accomplished over the generations with with this sort of thing. So just just to to memorialize it and to make sure that we understand these are stepping stones and all of the people that are involved in this, whether it's the city council, the city staff, the residents, the folks that have preceded us for generations that have have contributed to this being the special area that it is, or there would be no reason for this to have such a specialness as we go forward and as we all go off into the ether. What we've done here, I really think is profound, and there's more to be discovered about what it is. And I hope it can be memorialized by supporting the folks that are on the front line with discovering what it is that has to be put into nuts and bolts and brought out as part of the documented history to make sure we also are accountable to that. So with that, I support this and wish for the depth of of really memorializing it as a way of appreciating everybody that's been involved with this for the last ten, 15, 20, 30, 40, 100 years.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. So now any questions from members of Council 325. All right. Seen none. Public hearing 325 is now closed. Time for comment. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody that has come out tonight and Hayes, Paul Andrews, Betty Kram, Drew Deutscher, Mikki Zeppelin, Kim Kiss, Sarah, 81 to thank Mr. Hancock and his Cabinet members who have worked on this effort. And also to all of my colleagues tonight for being here this evening, knowing that you could have had the evening off. But you're here with us. So I very much appreciate it. The National Western Stock Show has had a long history of 109 years in the Globeville area, Swansea and neighborhood. And it's been my focus for the 12 years that I've served on council. It wasn't long ago, as was mentioned by the speakers, that we were working just to keep National Western here in Denver in our National Western Committee, taking the National Western Complex to the next level is moving forward. And we've had so many accomplishments, including a major feasibility study, a commitment to stay in Denver, a memorandum of understanding with CSU, the Denver Museum, Nature of Nature and Science History, Colorado. The formation of the National Western Center Advisory Committee, the global Elyria, Swansea and Neighborhood Plans and the National Western Master Plan. Also an application to the Regional Tourism Act in support of the CSU facilities at the state level. Just as significant to me as the movement going forward of National Western are the hopes of the surrounding neighborhoods of Globeville, Elyria and swans here to move forward as well with their neighborhood plans and improvements. Now that we are in the next stages of realizing the master plan and building the infrastructure for a national Western, we must also be integrating the human spirit in the neighborhoods where the national western exists. Globeville, Elyria and Swansea. If National Western is indeed going to be catalytic in nature, incorporating the values of the people in the area into the picture is just as critical as a physical connectivity. Moving the National Western Center text amendments and mapping forward is a step in the right direction for the master plan, but must also include long term sustainable structures for decision making. That includes the people of global Elyria sponsored Swans here and supports their dreams and aspirations. I would be extremely disappointed if the neighborhood was marginalized as their time is important and their contributions critical to the health, future and vitality of the neighborhood. It is also important to me moving forward that the neighborhood is always at the heart of the decision making over the full rollout in the future of the projects. I would like to see these amendments as charting a new course for how large scale projects move forward within historic, yet vulnerable neighborhoods. A new path would include a sustainable structure for inclusive government governance to the neighborhoods and the transformation of the national Western. Equally valuing the human factors of development, such as integration of jobs, training, health and well-being, and affordable housing for Elyria, Globeville and Swansea, and requesting that mediation services to work with the neighborhood are also a need for an ongoing role, as requested to me by neighborhood people, for an ombudsman to support neighbors throughout this fast moving process to help ensure that they are kept up to speed. No other neighborhoods in the city have been asked to be able to track the amount of public investment coming into and through their neighborhoods. And my worry is that the neighborhood will be left behind. So I just want to thank everyone again. And it was important for me to put my a little bit of my fears on the record, because my hope is that with the neighborhoods all coming together and all of the work that's been put into this whole process , that it keeps going forward but it keeps going forward in a suspicious, substantial and credible way, and that the neighborhoods here are not marginalized and are not seen included. They are, but they are. And. Marginalized as we go forward. If there's any opportunity for the sportsmen to play a neutral part in representing the neighborhoods is that all of these decisions are coming forward. I think it would be beneficial to all. So I'm asking my colleagues to support this very, very important proposal before us. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a this is an exciting day. And I, I was looking at Paul Andrews and I was reminded of August 2011. You're not going to remember this. You will. When I tell you, though, we're sitting in a visit Denver boardroom and the conversation was about, you know, the National Western Stock Show going to Aurora. And boy, you could cut the tension in that room with a knife. And Paul was just almost, you know, best for his organization. But you could see everyone in the room was very tense and wanted the National Western Stock Show. And fast forward here, 2015, a neighborhood coming together, an entire agency formed from the mayor's office. An entire city excited. A ballot measure pending. We have moved really, really fast. And, you know, I just I couldn't be more thrilled to be a part of this. And I think this council that is leaving couldn't be more thrilled to be a part of this, as well as this is one of our last meetings. But we'll I think we'll hold the city and the community accountable to this to see how fast we can get things done. I think a lot of plans sit on the table. They sit on the shelf for a long time. But this is being implemented at a very quick rate and we're really excited about it. I'm excited to be representing this this neighborhood and just a couple of weeks. And the things that I've been underlining is community input, community engagement, continue to bring the community along, have them at the table, which is great. But the thing that I haven't heard mentioned a lot, but came up a lot at Alaska's Civic Globeville Civic Association meeting is the existing conditions of the environment that we're currently in, the number of businesses that are acting in violation. I mean, think someone brought it up to tonight and talked about it that, you know, we have a vision for the future. But unless we start taking steps towards helping neighbor, helping the neighborhoods, helping good businesses get up to code and things like that, we're going to be in trouble . And so those are some things I'm going to be real focused on. The other piece is when I knocked on a number of doors in Globeville area, Swansea, I was amazed at the number of people who are not a part of the process, the number of people in the community who don't know what's going on. And so we still have a lot of work to do in trying to get folks to the meeting, trying to get folks to be a part of this, in way in to what they're, you know, these decisions that we're making. So while I think we've we've come a long way, there's still a lot of work that we have to do. And I think the people in this room are ready for it. And so I just want to thank Councilman Monteiro again for for working hard. All of the bills tonight have been in your district, so that says a little something. She's been incredibly busy, but not just busy. I think there's a bunch of neighbors who support all the work that you've been doing. So great work. And as as far as the community, thank you for your involvement. We've got a lot of work to do. We're going to keep working hard and and we'll be there to keep moving the ball down the field. So thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. All right. In the comments. 325. See none. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 7: Montero i.
Speaker 3: Nevett i. Ortega, I. Rob i. Brooks. I. Brown.
Speaker 7: Can each.
Speaker 3: Layman. Hi, Lopez. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Please cause a very nice results.
Speaker 3: Nice, nice, nice.
Speaker 2: Nice. 325 has passed. All right, we've got one more. And just remind counsel. After the public hearing and vote on 381, we will also need to vote on 430 the companion bill. So don't take off after the 381 vote.
|
Bill
|
Approves an official map amendment mapping the Zone District Campus-National Western Center (CMP-NWC) to properties either owned by the City and County of Denver or the National Western Association within the campus area identified in the National Western Center Master Plan, rezoning the properties from I-B (Industrial, 4,500 Lot Size), UO-2 (Use Overlay Allowing Billboards); I-A (Industrial, 3,000 Lot Size), UO-2 (Use Overlay Allowing Billboards); I-MX-3 (Industrial, Mixed Use, 3 stories), UO-2 (Use Overlay Allowing Billboards); CMP-ENT (Campus, Entertainment), UO-2 (Use Overlay Allowing Billboards) to CMP-NWC, UO-2 in Council District 9 (2015I-00057). (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves an official map amendment mapping the Zone District Campus-National Western Center (CMP-NWC) to properties either owned by the City and County of Denver or the National Western Association within the campus area identified in the National Western Center Master Plan, rezoning the properties from I-B (Industrial, 4,500 Lot Size), UO-2 (Use Overlay Allowing Billboards); I-A (Industrial, 3,000 Lot Siz
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07062015_15-0381
|
Speaker 2: Nice. 325 has passed. All right, we've got one more. And just remind counsel. After the public hearing and vote on 381, we will also need to vote on 430 the companion bill. So don't take off after the 381 vote. But first things first, Councilman Leavitt, will you please put 381 as amended on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 381, as amended, be placed series of 2015, be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Has been moved. We need a second. Got it. Thank you. The public hearing on 381 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Good evening. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Council President Herndon and thank you. Members of council. I'm Diane Barrett.
Speaker 7: The mayor's chief projects officer. As you will recall.
Speaker 4: We made a lengthy illustrated presentation at the Infrastructure and Culture Committee on the 3rd of June. And I.
Speaker 7: Know that you all heard a lively and comprehensive.
Speaker 4: Discussion about these projects with good questions and answers at the first reading on the 22nd.
Speaker 7: So my remarks tonight will be very brief. There are four.
Speaker 4: Points that we want to emphasize. Number one, the city agrees in this idea to pay Scott a total of $37.
Speaker 7: Million.
Speaker 4: For elements of their transportation project. This is a.
Speaker 7: Payment for the.
Speaker 4: Construction of project elements that see that would not.
Speaker 7: Be including.
Speaker 4: If it were not for the city's.
Speaker 7: Work.
Speaker 4: Those elements are first, the bookends on either side of the cover.
Speaker 7: That are.
Speaker 4: Essential for good urban design.
Speaker 7: B certain amenities on.
Speaker 4: The cover itself.
Speaker 7: And see the slip.
Speaker 4: Ramps which will distribute and disseminate traffic that's coming from the highway into the neighborhoods in a more.
Speaker 7: Orderly and.
Speaker 4: Limited.
Speaker 7: Fashion. These are elements.
Speaker 4: That greatly benefit our neighborhoods, but they would not otherwise be part of Scott's project.
Speaker 7: So we will be.
Speaker 4: Paying for those. The city only begins the payment of the $37 million in 2022 after those elements have been constructed and are in use.
Speaker 7: Point number two.
Speaker 4: CDOT agrees in the IGA to pay 40% of the city's to basin drainage project with a large portion of their share of those costs to be paid early in the construction process. The two Basin Drainage Project will provide protection from the 100 year storm to a wide swath of the city that includes the I-70 East Transportation Project . Absent seeds, cooperation and financial participation, the city's two basin drainage project would have provided only five years storm protection for the area and would likely have been delayed by many years for lack of available funds. Point number three, the IGA does not represent the end of the discussion about the impacts of the I-70 East Transportation Project on the local neighborhoods and their residents. Unfortunately, some people have tried to characterize the adoption of this IGA as the last bite of the apple for the citizens of Denver. And that is not true. The community in this area.
Speaker 7: Will be, as they have.
Speaker 4: Been for the last ten.
Speaker 7: Years or so, a critical stakeholder in looking.
Speaker 4: At everything that's going on with this project. In particular, the community has been tremendously involved and will continue to be in the design and the implementation of the cover over the highway. The NEPA process required for this project under the National Environmental Policy Act is being headed up by the Federal Highway Administration and CDOT, and it's been going on for 11 years and the communities have been involved, as have you all, on this council in that process. After some false starts, it did produce a draft environmental impact statement and a supplement to that draft.
Speaker 7: The city had significant.
Speaker 4: Input into those documents. As several of you council.
Speaker 7: Members will remember.
Speaker 4: Because you were entirely involved in making comments and corrections.
Speaker 7: And you will be.
Speaker 4: Again when the final environmental impact statement is issued in January of next year, the city will once again mount a concerted effort joining people, joining our efforts.
Speaker 7: So that we can communicate.
Speaker 4: Properly with Seedat and provide input to them about.
Speaker 7: The.
Speaker 4: Area, air quality and other impacts that are addressed in that study. And helping to achieve mitigation that's required under NEPA in ways that are commensurate with the federal requirements for environmental justice in the Globeville, Swansea and Elyria area. Point number four. Finally, to answer the question that's been posed about the timing of this idea, the two main reasons that now.
Speaker 7: Is the time to take.
Speaker 4: This action are, one, the early action portions of the drainage.
Speaker 7: Improvements need to be completed.
Speaker 4: Well in advance of the beginning of the transportation project so that nobody is in the way when CDOT gets going.
Speaker 7: Secondly, see, Dot's procurement process has already begun. Bidders have submitted.
Speaker 4: Statements of qualifications and they are ready to go if see how it can give.
Speaker 7: Assurance to bidders of the city's.
Speaker 4: Cooperation on this project.
Speaker 7: We expect the bidders to respond with significantly.
Speaker 4: Lower costs for the project. And I want you to note stands the terms of the iwga require that any savings in this bid.
Speaker 7: Process will be.
Speaker 4: Shared by sea with the city. Proportionate to our contribution to their project. Thank you again for your attention. Please note that Leslie Thomas, the city engineer and deputy director of Public Works, and Gretchen Haller, the deputy chief financial officer, are both here to answer any questions and provide responses as needed. Tony DeVito from Seedat is also here. Tony is the project manager. And you had his his wisdom at the first reading.
Speaker 7: Sean Sullivan, the.
Speaker 4: City's attorney assets, has been our attorney on this project, and he is here tonight, as well as several staff members from both community planning and development and public works.
Speaker 7: Who will be able.
Speaker 4: To and happy to answer questions and make comments. And I just want to say.
Speaker 7: Then I'm really.
Speaker 4: Pleased that it will be this council that will be voting on this project. You folks have been steadfast in your work for these neighborhoods and you have been so much a part of all that's going on in this project. And I'm glad that it's you that's voting tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have 11 speakers. I will call the first five. You can make your way up to the front pew and we can make some room for them and be great. Make sure it is true. DUTCHER Shannon Gifford, Jason Winkler and Betty Cram so you five can make your way up to the first pew and Mr. Sherrod, as you can begin your remarks when you're ready.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the council. I know it's late, so I will be brief. My name is Mike Gerardus. I'm the director of the unit within the Department of Transportation in the state called the High Performance Transportation Enterprise. We have the authority within the state government to pursue innovative financing for projects of this nature. I visited, I think, over the last several months with with each of you here walking through, answering questions about a procurement process that involves the private sector. That decision has been made by the Transportation Commission, as Diane just mentioned. We are in the middle of that procurement. This idea that's before you tonight is important for several reasons. One, it helps us fund the project, helps fill a gap that existed in funding this, as everybody knows, at the state level or at the city level . There are not a lot of funds floating around. And we've we've been struggling to put together some of that funding, which this is this in to it addresses an important risk element of this project, the drainage the storm drainage aspect of the problem, which we think is quite important. I think Tony can answer questions about that. Third, and most important in my mind is to underscore again what Diane pointed out. We have got a project that fundamentally involves the interest not only of the state, but of the largest city and county within the state. And without a measure of cooperation between those two entities, the people who are out there ready to invest tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars in this project, raise their eyebrows in terms of wondering whether the political risk of the of the project is worth it. It's quite important for that from that standpoint. Lastly, I want to I want to not forget about the elements of this contract agreement that address the commitments to collaboration between see DOT in this seat in the city going forward. I think probably I don't know at this point. I'm maybe not the longest living resident of Denver, but pretty close to it.
Speaker 2: This is sure as I apologize you 3 minutes is up and.
Speaker 8: Maybe John is. I don't know. We'll have to compare birthdates. But in any event, I know.
Speaker 2: You're 3 minutes out. Mr. Shaw. I'm sorry I had to stop here.
Speaker 8: So thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next is Drew Dutcher.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm Drew Dutch. I live in Illyria. I live about 200 yards from the highway. It's soon to be very close. I want to just first say I blindsided by this. I found out that fortunately somebody called me a week ago saying, you know, that we've made $83 million agreement with the city. No public hearings, no meetings, no nothing for this. I support the drainage project, but I think it's very devious for the city to try to roll this package together to ram through the I-70 project. In this way, we put a lot of work into comments for the draft, the supplemental draft, EIA. Yes. And that the final yes is not coming out till January. We have no idea and no faith that any of our concerns will ever be met. What guarantee is there? They're not even talking to us. This was some backroom behind the scenes deal done with the city. And see, Don, there's there's too many disturbing things about this for me in 3 minutes to go into it. But there's just and I'll mention a few this CDOT is using a ten year old study to justify ten lanes. Now, there's many people who will say that a NEPA process five years is the shelf life of a of a study the unacceptable 300 feet wide highway. We're not sure we need this the funding mechanism and mechanisms of privatizing the highway with toll lanes. So these are very questionable. We can't get air monitoring or any kind of sufficient health study. We've never gotten answers of what will be the construction impacts that the impacts to the neighborhood during construction. None of these issues are being addressed. When when will we talk about them? You know, you're making these agreements in our behalf that we're paying for. And what and what what say do we have in this process? I feel you're giving away everything to see that. Why doesn't the city represent the residents of Denver? You know, one of the things that I really don't understand is I hear city officials say this is a done deal. I don't understand what you've done, what's done about it. I keep hearing this. You know, you've got your your chorus all saying this is a done deal. There's a lot to be done yet before this is done. We need to have a public discussion about this. And there's many people who wanted to come tonight. First of all, I wasn't going to come. It's 10:00. But there's many people who are really boycotting this hearing and won't come tonight just because they don't like the way that this was rolled in with all of the other projects. Judy, I really would have like to end on a high note, but, you know, I'm afraid this is difficult. You know, the really most harmful thing about this is there's a lot of goodwill that we had built up in a lot of the other processes, the neighborhood processes, the National Western Center. And it's being destroyed through this ice, this I-70 process. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Shannon Gifford.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Council members.
Speaker 4: I'll be very brief. My name Shannon Gifford and I live at 32/29 Street.
Speaker 7: I'm the current Transportation Commission member for District One.
Speaker 4: Which represents Denver County. As many of you know, the planning and environmental.
Speaker 7: Review process for the.
Speaker 4: I-70.
Speaker 7: East.
Speaker 4: Project is now in its 12th year, and I particularly like to acknowledge Councilwoman Montero's leadership and involvement throughout this very long time and congratulate her on the work that she has done to bring.
Speaker 7: Members of the.
Speaker 4: Involved communities together to contribute their knowledge to.
Speaker 7: Forging solutions. And obviously there remains work to be done. The intergovernmental agreement before you tonight is just one.
Speaker 4: Example of many projects throughout the state, which, due to the current state of.
Speaker 7: Transportation funding in which and due to the current state of transportation.
Speaker 4: Funding, SEAWRIGHT is turning to local partners to deliver projects.
Speaker 7: And as those of you who studied these drainage issues in this area, and I know we talked about it a lot a couple of weeks ago, well, no, we can.
Speaker 4: Accomplish more by working together on.
Speaker 7: This specific aspect of the project. And I believe that this much needed level of preparation just just simply makes no sense. So finally, I know that.
Speaker 4: Sidewalks mitigation commitments.
Speaker 7: Are a primary concern for many members of this council.
Speaker 4: And I know some members are going off the council now.
Speaker 7: And the the the fact that we.
Speaker 4: Have sort of a changing council and that.
Speaker 7: A lot. And when you have such a big project, you have a lot of processes going.
Speaker 4: On at once. There's been a lot of concern about Sea Dot's real commitment to the mitigation. And I just.
Speaker 7: Want to assure you that Seattle is committed to working with this and with future councils.
Speaker 4: As we refine and finalize these commitments.
Speaker 7: So I hope that you'll support this intergovernmental agreement.
Speaker 4: And thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Jason Winkler.
Speaker 0: Good evening and thanks to all the members of council for having us here and thanks for staying attentive this late in the evening. To that end, I will be really brief. My name is Jason Winkler and I'm a resident of Denver and also really fortunate to be working on exciting projects in the same kind of part of the city that most of the preceding talks were about. And and that's really what I bring here is a limited but I think a pointed perspective on the different things happening in what I'd call Greater North Denver, which is really all these areas I've learned really by, I would say, trial by fire, how incredibly important drainage and all the different infrastructure that needs to be done at a city level is to private development and and to the progress that that can be made and some of the exciting things it can be made to happen in a neighborhood when the private sector and the city work together and looking at this particular drainage project and the way the city has handled it. And when I say the city, I talk about you, members of council and the mayor's office. And when I describe the kinds of creative thinking that bring together the city, for example, and see not at the state level and how the two can come together to act quickly and in part of town, that's changing quickly and make things happen in a nimble way, folks, whether they're they're just friends or whether they're coworkers.
Speaker 10: Or financial partners from outside the city, they are literally in awe at how impressed they are.
Speaker 0: By the way everything moves in Denver and everybody in Denver, whether you're on the government.
Speaker 10: Level, the private.
Speaker 0: Sector should be really proud and excited about that because you probably if you don't hear that from outside, you don't realize how unique it is. So to that end, I wanted to just give my.
Speaker 10: My level of support.
Speaker 0: Largely from the way on Brighton Boulevard, the.
Speaker 10: City has worked with both private and public sector.
Speaker 0: And the way the process was so incredibly transparent, so incredibly creative and so incredibly inclusive and collaborative. And so to that end, while there's a ton of work to be done and the details of exactly how these two drainage projects almost come together to be one drainage project, there's a ton of work still to be done, but I have full faith that the groups will be all of those things that I.
Speaker 10: Just described.
Speaker 0: And have all the brains, if you will, come together to come to the best solution and work in a timeline that's going to work ahead of I-70 and in conjunction with all the redevelopment that's going on. So I'm.
Speaker 10: Here in full support and.
Speaker 8: And thank you.
Speaker 0: Members of council as well as members of the mayor's office for how everybody comes together to make smart solutions happen. So thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next is Betty Crane. And as Betty comes up, I'll go ahead and call the next six speakers. Just so you know, it's David Bennett, John's AP. And no, let me go. Cindy, said Stritch, David Wolinsky and Ann Elizabeth. So you all can certainly make your way up to the first two pews. And Ms.. Graham, you may begin.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much. I'll start out by saying I live in the area and when you go down there, sometimes, sometimes you find a little bit of cement laying around. It's just what's fallen from the highway. And so this is to who? It's concerning. Little chicken said the sky is falling and Denver County says no I-70 may fall. See, that said no. We will make a new I-70 and we will do what is right for the neighborhood. Really? I thought that issue was settled with a new raised viaduct. It would come north and have eight new lanes. Now you say that you need more than eight lanes. You will not build a new viaduct. So now the plan is to have ten lanes to toll roads. This will gobble up a lot of our historic area because now it has to be a 30 foot deep trench. At least ten lanes slide and about 20 blocks long. Not to mention the two access roads to run along the side of the highway. This will destroy over 60 homes and over 20 businesses. This trench will have no exit along the route. You state you will build a lane or park over the highway in front of the school. But the city will have to do the maintenance and the care of the park. There will be a network of side roads for travel in the local area, which will bring a lot of local traffic trucks into the area in order to get an entrance to I-70 east or west. Two concerns in our area are the filtering of the water away from the 30 foot trench and the salt pollution that will be a problem near the school and the residential areas close to I-70. Why does it seem this area from Brighton Boulevard to Colorado Boulevard is a target for your toll road? I don't hear of any other toll roads planned for about ten years in this little area. This toll road is not fair to the local citizens who are the working class, poor, poor class, nor for the local traffic that would come through to the National Western Center would be traveling through the area to see that in Denver. Please scratch your heads a little longer and come up with a better plan for us. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. David Bennett.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is David Bennett. I'm with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, and I'm here representing the district who is a partner with the city and county of Denver on this project. Now, for those of you that don't know the district, we work with local government. So we've been working with Denver on this project for a number of years in the planning phases, the design phases, and then we'll be partnering with them in the implementation phase. We also provide a technical resource of drainage and flood control. We helped guide the vision and most importantly, were a funding partner in this project at about 11 and a half million dollars. This is a very important project from the drainage perspective. We've been working on it for a number of years. I think the solution we're proposing is innovative. It meets a lot of the needs and you're getting a much upgraded system from five year to 100 year. So from our perspective, the drainage perspective, this is a great a great improvement for the area. So basically, we're in support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Next is John Sapin.
Speaker 8: Well, here we go again. I agree with almost everything this lady said initially. I wish I wish we would have heard this ten years ago or even eight years ago. The former head of Public Works, Bill Fidel, was in the neighborhood and he didn't say a damn thing about this urban drainage.
Speaker 0: You knew about this such.
Speaker 8: A long time. Why did you not come to our neighborhood? You have the wherewithal to do that, at least some public notice of some sort. We've got we've got this issue and it's I, I won't use the term devious, but I think it lacks some veracity. It would have been really an addition to the goodwill with C dot if this would have come up at one of the neighborhood. Me. How long up?
Speaker 0: God. How many meetings we've had in the.
Speaker 8: Last ten years or so? The main concern that I have about the drainage thing is that. When this project's complete. It's a funnel at Washington Street, and the next project is going to be expansion of I-70 through Globeville. We've had a hate relationship with the Colorado Department of Highways since the fifties, and that's ingrained. And I'll admit there's some bias. But but to deal with this amount of money that your grandkids, our grandkids are going to be paying for this. Yeah. And there's no end in sight. I think it has to be addressed and it has to be dealt with. But I don't think this is the way to do it. There's a public.
Speaker 0: Process that hadn't.
Speaker 8: Taken place, and we're talking about a lot of money. And, you know, I hope it's not a done deal because like I say, I don't think it's devious, but the term veracity is up in the area. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Now let me go.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. President. Hello, councilmembers. My name is Nolan Miguel. I live.
Speaker 3: At 4930.
Speaker 4: Vallejo Street. I know many of you. I worked for Councilman Monteiro for the last three years and just had my first day today as the new director for Global Air since I live well in Focus Points Family Resource Center. So I'm here today as just me and I really appreciate the deliberation intention that you all have given to this issue. I know that you just found out about this idea several weeks ago as well and have been rummaging through it and trying to process it as well. And I just want to say, we will need your continued support on this I-70 project. This isn't it. We're not done. This isn't a final agreement. There's a lot more that we need to work on together and appreciate your continued support. I generally support this idea going through because the drainage project is so huge and important to the neighborhood as a benefit. We just saw that recently with the floods of 46th Street was filling up with water. Washington Street was. This is a huge, huge need in the neighborhood. I understand that having an agreement with the city is important to see that to be able to move forward with the contractor. I also understand that in order to get these this drainage agreement, there had to be this larger package that had to be negotiated in order to get this and that. That's kind of how ideas work. But I just want to say, in no way that we're that this that we're done, that this is it in working with the city or CEDA and addressing all the concerns and the priorities that the neighborhood has. This is not mitigation. We're still working on mitigation. We still have the RFP. That is critical document. We still have the final year and other critical document. These are all things that we're going to be working with residents on and pushing for long term solutions to the impact that this project is going to have. Councilman Monteiro has worked to establish structures around housing, health, jobs and education to get some of these priorities addressed. You know, we have a lot of things that we'd like to see happen. We'd like to have a percentage of the projects, for instance, go to training in the neighborhood. They did.
Speaker 7: That in.
Speaker 4: I-64 in Missouri. We'd love to see business opportunities rerouting truck traffic in the neighborhood, increase services to 500 feet from the highway, jobs, replacement, housing for neighborhood viability, all of these things. But these aren't things that are appropriate for being in this idea at this time. There are some things that would be appropriate to have maybe in the idea, such as narrowing the footprint of the highway or maybe looking at other regional solutions to, oh, it's over to the to the.
Speaker 7: The.
Speaker 4: Issues in for I-70 and also 47th in York. That's a big one. Sorry, I could keep going, but overall, I support this. And we're looking to Tony to to.
Speaker 7: Director, to.
Speaker 4: To make sure it is to keep working with us in the future.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Cindy says, stretching. And I apologize if I mispronounced that.
Speaker 4: I'm Cindy Sestak. I live in District ten of Denver. And I am here today as a spokesperson for the Denver League of Women Voters. Would you. And thank you again for scheduling this special hearing. We do.
Speaker 7: Appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Please put our letter of June 24th into the record.
Speaker 7: Where we voiced our concerns.
Speaker 4: Regarding transparency and.
Speaker 7: Public process and prudent use of taxpayer.
Speaker 4: Money for the nurses drainage and I-70 project funding. We agree this project is necessary.
Speaker 7: However, we have observed meetings.
Speaker 4: Televised and in-person.
Speaker 7: Where questions have been.
Speaker 4: Where questions asked haven't been fully answered in public. The data needed to justify your upcoming decision to approve these large amounts of funding.
Speaker 7: Hasn't been published.
Speaker 4: Or noticed noted in meetings that we can find.
Speaker 6: Outside experts.
Speaker 7: Should be.
Speaker 4: Allowed to audit the cost sharing agreements and long term funding obligations of taxpayers funds prior to making your final decision.
Speaker 7: At a minimum, you are obligating.
Speaker 4: Nearly 200 million.
Speaker 7: For.
Speaker 4: Drainage projects, transportation enhancements and in-kind contributions, which are lost revenue for the city of Denver. But this agreement appears to be open ended with unforeseen consequences for years to come. There's a lot of funding involved. We think this agreement.
Speaker 7: As stated, is too vague.
Speaker 4: For this a large amount of taxpayer obligation.
Speaker 7: Therefore, we urge.
Speaker 4: You to vote no tonight and allow the incoming council to give the time and attention this project.
Speaker 7: Deserves to fulfill City Council's duty to the citizens.
Speaker 4: Of Denver. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. David Wolinsky.
Speaker 8: Thank you. My name is David. Let's give me a Globeville resident. I live in 4930 Logan Street, and I've been to a lot of meetings, and I. Never heard anyone support the I-70 project. We always denied it. But you're still moving on with it. And I can understand Drew Tucker's frustration, you know, and. You know, June 16th, 50 years ago, that river flooded and this year it was pushed to capacity. And then we had Cherry Creek with that that that that that that freak rainstorm or whatever we had. Why did you study this? Did you study it after this year? You didn't study that for this rainy season, have you? You know, I, I this is going to be rethought. I mean, they're going to have a new conversation. I mean, we don't know what the future is going to hold. I've never seen this kind of rain that we got this year walking that river constantly. You know, I seen the 65 flood. I was ten years old. It was the scariest thing you can ever imagine, you know, and and watch this river run high the way it is. I drive the trolley down there down on College Park and just walking that river high and low, lying low in the snowpack in the runoff we've had. I think he's a under thinking this. You know and it ain't going to work. It's just not going to work. You're putting that up. You're putting that highway under river level, you know. Are they are you engineers going to be held accountable or responsible if this thing floods and there's death? Or is that is that figured into. I don't think it is. You know, I mean, if you're if you're a bus driver and you get drunk and you and you crash your bus, you're held responsible. We need to start holding these engineers responsible because they're doing some things that I don't know if it's ever been done in this state. I've never seen it, you know. And, you know, if you if you did take if this isn't a done deal and you did move I-70 out, you know, there's a fortune in land sitting there that we could we could heal all our ills, our housing problems, you name it, it and the developers. This is a perfect time. Colorado now just moved in a number one spot for housing. And we're going to stay hot for a lot of years to come, you know, and if you turned I-70 and even into a boulevard and you moved it out financially, we could go ahead and and do it because the property values is going to be there. Well, you know, we looking at we don't have enough land. Well, there's a lot of land under there and it's an ideal location. And I think this has to be rethought. We got to really look at it. And, you know, we just this the way these floodings happened, the way there's water, the way the rains are coming, it's never done that before. John and I were talking. We've never seen it rain like that. Debbie's a longtime resident. You or have you ever seen it rain like this? I've never seen it rain.
Speaker 2: Mr. Leslie, your 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir. Last speaker and Elizabeth.
Speaker 11: My name is Anne Elizabeth Glanville, and I'm a past member of the Steering, the Globeville Neighborhood Planning Steering Committee and associated member of the Elyria Swansea Steering Committee for the Plan, Neighborhood Planning and a National Western Center Advisory Committee member. It is a reflection of the exhaustion of people and people that are boycotting this that several of us are speaking several times. And I do want to say the tip of the iceberg is here. I normally very much would support the drainage project. We need this. And I think Denver is rising justifiably with some exciting commitment to the drainage project. But I would and I and I want to say that I have had extremely good responsiveness and I'm working diligently with Cedar at all levels to get better communication out. And I'm very excited at the possibility of greater engagement. And with that, I would ask the city council to defer this for 45 days after the new council comes on. Do your job to make your case. Let there be some more public conversation, with all due respect, a sentiment that you've worked hard on. And so I hope the council this council can be the one to pass. It is not a good reason to pass something. Judy Montero is right that the neighborhoods need not to be sidelined. And I'm going to say to you with my heart, in parallel to what you're asking, we're keeping the community engaged and not marginalized. Please ask for this to be passed in 45 days and not before so that we can have more engagement and have more explanation as to the ramifications of this. The elephant in the room is, of course, that people that there is not a consensus in the neighborhood. There are unanswered questions. What are the ramifications? I have disassociated from the time from some of the culture, the leadership of the reroute group that I do not feel does build goodwill within the neighborhood. I also am very concerned that some of the research that's being generated around the possibility needs to be vetted more strongly. And we need to let the the Federal Highway Commission process complete itself. I am very in awe attending Transportation Commission meetings, looking at the HPT and the the the bridge is conversations that the individuals in this room that are doing a spectacular job trying to come up with a good, creative and innovative way to deal with the highway project that has a serious financial shortfall. We are not each other's enemies and we need to engage with each other better. We need more explanations as to why is this the solution and more guarantees that truly this is for the best interests of the neighborhoods. Plural, by the way. Welcome to District nine. Mr. Albert. But you continually say the neighborhood has come together globally. Swans here, three neighborhoods. You'll get it. Plural. Three neighborhoods. There are more. You know, I'm. This is part of the full understanding of this. So I would ask the council. I embrace that partnership with the city on the flooding project. But it is also the case that this is marrying the partially covered, lowered option with particulars that are up in the air. And let's let the process get a little bit further and let's let's give it another 45 days, bridge it to the new council and let's have more public exposure of the issues in the ramifications.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: That concludes our speakers. Time for questions. We are. I have a list. Councilman Brooks, you're up.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I live seven blocks from these neighborhoods, so I do know that there are three neighborhoods. But I wanted to bring up Diane and also Leslie, and I'm going to go. You did a great presentation, nice summary of kind of what we're going through here. But number three is, is the big issue and it's around I've gotten a lot of emails saying is this does this IGA give neighborhoods the last kind of bite at the apple? Will they have other other opportunities to comment and to talk about some frustrations and some issues? And so maybe, Leslie, this would be better for you. I'd love for you to read into the record. I found this the the the FDIC review process plan. And I want you to just it's going to take a little bit of time, but I want you to go through it, talk about the number of days that council and the community have to speak into each one of these issues. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Good evening. I'm Leslie Thomas. I'm the city engineer and deputy director of Public Works. So we have prepared our team and public works like what we did with the supplemental draft as a whole. Plan for the review of the final year, which is now scheduled. Our best information is that it will be available for public review January 15th of 2016. So what we've prepared is.
Speaker 4: A tentative.
Speaker 7: I-70 East Project FISA review process. It includes three.
Speaker 4: Steps review.
Speaker 7: Preparation. So what we do in that timeframe, it's about two months starting in October excuse me, August and ending in October. And it has steps that take a look at verifying the technical folks within the city to review the study. Excuse me, who did review the supplemental draft?
Speaker 4: This it's been a little while, so we want to be.
Speaker 7: Sure we have the right folks. We'll take a look at the past comments that we got from council and technical folks and that what we've heard in a series.
Speaker 4: Of public meetings that.
Speaker 7: Public works and Councilwoman Monteiro, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Organized with the community, I think about January, December through March this year.
Speaker 7: We did that specifically so that we could understand that the.
Speaker 4: Comments that.
Speaker 7: We did submit to see that were.
Speaker 4: Resonating with the community. I want.
Speaker 7: To let you know that two of the big ones that we did talk about were.
Speaker 4: Drainage and traffic. In the neighborhoods. There are multiple, but I.
Speaker 7: Won't tell you all about those.
Speaker 4: Tonight.
Speaker 7: We also want to confirm that the what the prior mitigations were that we requested requested so we can have that at our fingertips. We'll also be.
Speaker 4: Reaching out to the.
Speaker 7: Administration.
Speaker 4: Cabinet levels and.
Speaker 7: Managers as well as to city council to bring.
Speaker 4: Everyone up to speed and remind us of what we.
Speaker 7: Did about a year ago. Then we will spend about 30 days doing training. That will be training of our staff who technical staff who will be taking a look at this FISA as well as reaching out to council and council staff. There's a there's.
Speaker 4: A lot of comments and it will be a very large document that we need to review within.
Speaker 7: 30 days.
Speaker 4: 30 calendar days of receiving the document. So we want to have everybody poised and ready to go to read their favorite sections in a way to pull those comments together, starting once we receive it. Expected in January will begin a staff review with issue escalation among the technical folks.
Speaker 7: As well as working with council to help collect the comments and put them together if that's what council desires. I believe in the stages. We had a administration and technical letter.
Speaker 4: And we also had several.
Speaker 7: Letters from council and that is totally okay. We're here to help and facilitate that. That'll give us a few days.
Speaker 4: It's about two weeks to review it, so it's a lot of work to do. In a couple of weeks we'll.
Speaker 7: Send spend a week to compile it and.
Speaker 4: Then send comments out to see that during this.
Speaker 7: Time, the this 30.
Speaker 4: Days.
Speaker 7: The neighbors, the citizens.
Speaker 4: Can all comment as well while we're doing that and those comments can be.
Speaker 7: Made directly.
Speaker 4: To see that. So right now, this is our tentative based upon the timeline that we have from Syria, but we'll be preparing in that way.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, just let me just get that in summary. That was that was good. Thank you. We're going to review and prep for 62 days. We're going to do a training for 31 days. We're going to have review, comments and resolution complete and submit comments for another 30 days, which, you know, is about 123 days. And we as specific council members can work with community leaders, community folks to compile all of these comments to submit into the office. Okay. One more question. All right, Mr. President, I haven't talked tonight. You know, we have gotten a lot of residents in Park Hill, a lot of residents in on the east side of Denver, a lot of residents and guess who have have been emailing me about, you know, the issues with the flooding at a very high level. And technical. How bad is is the Park Hill Basin in the Moncler Basin.
Speaker 7: There a big.
Speaker 4: Challenge because they are a drainage way that was built over.
Speaker 7: In the city back in the 18 and.
Speaker 4: 1900s. And I think when Paul Heineman discussed this at committee, he was pretty concerned.
Speaker 7: And thought that if we did.
Speaker 4: Receive excuse me, 100.
Speaker 7: Year storm.
Speaker 4: In this basin, that it could be Katrina like I think is what he use.
Speaker 7: So it's a concern and we're excited.
Speaker 4: To have a partnership with that, to be able to take this on.
Speaker 0: And one more question. If we weren't able to partner or figure out a catalytic project to leverage dollars on. I want to make sure I got this right from Diane. We would only be able to build a five year storm drainage system.
Speaker 7: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 4: Five years is about an inch in an hour and 100 years is about 2.6 inches in an hour.
Speaker 7: Okay. So what we saw recently in the basin was.
Speaker 4: About.
Speaker 7: Two inches in an hour.
Speaker 4: Which is about a.
Speaker 7: 25 year storm, which we had.
Speaker 4: Some significant impacts.
Speaker 7: So we're happy to be able to give a higher level of protection.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman, can each Brooks think outside? Brooks, I'm staring at Lopez's name I that my apologies. Katherine McGinnis.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to just pick up Leslie, if I can just close and then I have some questions that I think I would like to have urban drainage answer as well. But I just want to clarify. So when we had speakers say you should reevaluate the project in light of recent rain, recent rain, what was the highest level of rain we had recently? In this area. What I saw was about two inches.
Speaker 7: But Dave, is that correct? Dave Bennetts with there urban drainage, they keep track of it with rain gauges.
Speaker 4: So you could stand up and just confirm. And I think I'd like to hear it from you since you're the drainage expert.
Speaker 0: We've had a very wet spring, as everyone's aware of the rainstorm we had last week. We were seeing close to 2.6 inches of rain in some of the areas. Very intense rain in a very short period of time. You mentioned, I believe, that we were seeing high flooding on the South Platte River. We had the fourth highest recording flow ever on the South Platte River that week at 14,300 cubic feet per second. So it was a very significant event with a very short, intense rainstorm. I think, as Paul was alluding to earlier, if you move that to a different basin that doesn't really have the infrastructure to handle it, it could have been quite a devastating event. There was some localized flooding and flooding, but it really centered over Cherry Creek and that's why Cherry Creek flows were so high.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And so can I clarify then? Because I think the question that got asked is we've all been talking about how great this proposal is. Is it good enough is if we've recently had that level of rain? Is the plan that you have for a similar level of rain adequate.
Speaker 0: For what we're talking about for the basins right now? Yes. I mean, we've been looking at this for a number of years, and I think we're confident as we move ahead that this is a great plan to address that.
Speaker 4: Is there any area of the city that has a higher level of protection than the 100 year level or.
Speaker 0: There's other areas that certainly do have higher levels of protection? I think Leslie alluded to the fact that the city basically built over the drainage way, even in some of the other drainage ways, like Harvard Gulch or Wesley Creek, still existed. They maybe couldn't carry the capacity, but we completely buried this one and it's not there. And so now that's why it's so expensive. We have to go back and recreate 100 year storm. So.
Speaker 4: Got it. So. So there may be areas that are at less risk, but it's because they were never at this high of a risk. We didn't bring them back from the brink. That was correct. This area back us. Thank you. So my next question is about process. I'm familiar with the work that you all did around the Globeville Basin, where there were public meetings, there was a series of discussions, and then the entire approach made it into an urban drainage plan that was adopted. It feels to the residents like this process did not follow that same approach. Is that accurate? And if so, why?
Speaker 0: Basically, the city took the lead on the public relations part of this. So all of these discussions have been part of this ongoing plan. So urban drainage did not specifically hold a meeting to talk about this because it's been this part of this larger plan. But we've been talking about this project for five or six years. So.
Speaker 4: Okay. So maybe the city would like to speak to this question of so I guess feel free to respond generally, but I want to even be more pointed. When did the discussion begin with see that for this particular AG that we're seeing today, where the drainage project became a piece of the discussion.
Speaker 7: We started a.
Speaker 4: Multi-Agency technical team in October of 2013, and it had to do with solving issues surrounding the RTD.
Speaker 7: Eagle line.
Speaker 4: That cuts through this basin where.
Speaker 7: There were significant.
Speaker 4: Drainage concerns as.
Speaker 7: Well as with see that.
Speaker 4: As they announced their partially covered lowered section. And so we worked with urban drainage.
Speaker 7: And each of those other entities.
Speaker 4: Engineering consultants to figure out what the flows.
Speaker 7: Were.
Speaker 4: These are technical pieces of information that everyone needs to be on the same page with.
Speaker 7: And we came up with this recommendation that you.
Speaker 4: See coming forward to you.
Speaker 7: To basically leverage all of the improvements that each of.
Speaker 4: Those.
Speaker 7: Public entities were planning to work on in order.
Speaker 4: To come up.
Speaker 7: With this one solution that benefits all of us. Now, the challenge that we've.
Speaker 4: Had is that until.
Speaker 7: We were able to bring this agreement to you.
Speaker 4: We did not have.
Speaker 7: Seat outs, agreements in place to be able to make the commitment to the 100 year.
Speaker 4: Storm. So we've been working on a five year storm up until that point.
Speaker 7: As well as RTD. That's the level of effort that they did. So with this idea and this approval in price.
Speaker 4: We'll be able to move forward with 100 year strategy and service level, which we're really excited to do. I guess we need to kind of. Ask to put. I need to push a little more to understand better, because all the time we as a city has plans we don't have funding for. We go out, we have process, we have discussion. The Globeville Junction drainage plan is not funded. It it may not be funded for a decade or more, but we had public meetings and we had discussions. So I guess I don't understand why we could not or did not have any public meeting because we didn't yet have the funding commitment. To me, planning and design and what kind of flood protection we need is a very different conversation than how we're going to pay for it. And so, I guess help the residents and help me understand why. And how is it that we did not have any public discussion about the solution?
Speaker 7: Well, I guess.
Speaker 4: Put it this.
Speaker 7: One thing to add, we.
Speaker 4: Have gone to the community as to whether this is a problem. We did have public meetings on our.
Speaker 7: Outfall, our.
Speaker 4: High street outfall.
Speaker 7: From 40th.
Speaker 4: Down to the river.
Speaker 7: We haven't gone up in.
Speaker 4: The basin because, to be honest with.
Speaker 7: You, we didn't know whether we're going to be able to do.
Speaker 4: It. We do have urban drainage now under.
Speaker 7: Contract and there designers under contract us help us to do it. So we're ready to go now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I guess that's not very satisfying when we have meetings all the time for projects we don't have funding for. But I will let it go because you've done your best. We met.
Speaker 7: Well, just to add another thing, we did have our folks from Urban Drainage and our master plan folks at the end.
Speaker 4: Public meeting several times for months about this particular. Yes.
Speaker 7: Showing the issues that we had. But was it an actual.
Speaker 4: OSP, which maybe I'm too technical.
Speaker 7: Here is what you're talking about in Globeville, where they had a specific public meeting.
Speaker 4: We have not had one of those yet.
Speaker 7: But we have carried this issue.
Speaker 4: Forward and had Shay Thomas.
Speaker 7: And others from Urban Drainage. Selina Koslowski are engineers at the DCC meetings.
Speaker 4: To.
Speaker 7: Talk about the issue.
Speaker 4: And show the pictures that we're showing in the.
Speaker 7: Iwga generally as to what the solution.
Speaker 4: Is. I have some more questions for seerat, but I can seed and go back in the queue if someone else wants to. Mr. President, it's your pleasure, but I have another line of question.
Speaker 2: I hope we can come back to you, Councilwoman and Councilman Lopez, Europe. Thank you. My question is that we can't make the microphone. Microphone.
Speaker 5: My question is addressed by Mr. Bernanke. He addressed it eloquently. He already did. You already did that. So our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And I am going to move from the stormwater issue, which I am convinced is necessary. And I'm delighted that in this agreement the state is stepping up with this 6040 share there being 40. But I want to talk about the 83 million that we are putting into the transportation piece. So I think my first question is probably for Diane Barrett. I am thinking that I used to hear Don Hunt talk about the total cost of the I-70 project, and I haven't heard Salem bought talk about it yet. But what I'm remembering is the total cost of the project is about 800 million up.
Speaker 7: We're if we're talking.
Speaker 4: About hard costs, I think 800 to.
Speaker 7: 1.8 billion is about that's what we've been that's what we've been working.
Speaker 4: Toward. Obviously, the cost of the project.
Speaker 7: Won't be truly.
Speaker 4: Known until.
Speaker 7: The builders have done their.
Speaker 4: Thing and we've had the.
Speaker 6: Procurement. So do you think the 83 million in this agreement we keep talking about future bites of the apple for. Mitigation and things that may be in the final year. But do you think the 83 million is our total commitment in terms of the transportation piece of the I-70 project? Have have we taken our final bite at that one? Yes. Okay. So then.
Speaker 7: Councilwoman, I think it might be a little.
Speaker 4: Bit confusing to use the 83.
Speaker 7: Because.
Speaker 4: We have $37 million that's dollars on the table that we're paying for things that we're getting. Right. The other portion of your 83. Some of it is actual dollars in the sense of relief from permit fees, for instance, and that sort of thing.
Speaker 7: Others are a bit more.
Speaker 4: Nebulous in that there's $10 million in this instance for risk, that sort of thing. So it's kind of it's kind of apples and oranges.
Speaker 7: So probably better to talk about the 37 million and then.
Speaker 4: The in-kind support perhaps.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I just think some of the income. Well, let me talk.
Speaker 4: About it any way you want because.
Speaker 6: Related to that, to the in-kind. I want to know about the slip ramps and bypass lanes because I call those access roads. Am I calling them the right thing?
Speaker 4: I would love to have Tony DeVito talk to this because I'm not a traffic controller.
Speaker 6: But let me get there's a bigger question.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 6: So my thing is mostly the neighbors and some of us are council didn't want the highway right away to be so large, and yet we're contributing to making it wider white. Why are we paying for that piece of it?
Speaker 4: Because in the last analysis, we ended it. And I do need Tony. In the last analysis, we ended up agreeing with, see that that that this Steele and Vasquez intersection and the Colorado Boulevard intersection.
Speaker 7: Would be two halves of a hole.
Speaker 4: And what happens is the bookends.
Speaker 6: No, that's.
Speaker 4: Not the bookends. That's something different. I'm sorry. That's mine. I'll explain that, too. But. But the way the intersection works.
Speaker 7: Traffic would be dumped.
Speaker 4: Into the neighborhoods like that. Whereas if the slip ramps are built, the traffic will be dispersed and disseminated as it comes off the highway. So it's not coming out in large numbers all at the same time. Tony, do it more.
Speaker 7: Do it better, please.
Speaker 0: T-Rex. T-Rex. Talk about T-Rex.
Speaker 5: Yeah. The interchanges of Vasquez and Colorado are two independent split diamonds. As we move into the final design of what's being proposed, and it's actually a $1.17 billion project is as we're moving forward. It was working with the city of Denver is trying to identify how those interchanges could best work not only from an interstate, but also not end up in a situation where people would bypass the interstate and use more of a local system. This was something that the city and county of Denver traffic engineers made very clear and evident that these slip ramps and bypass lanes were needed to try to better negotiate that weave on the interstate template and not into the neighborhood. And so it was a request from the city and actually a slight detriment to the interstate operation to incorporate this. And in working with our federal partners, we've come to an agreement on that.
Speaker 6: Okay. Actually, that explanation was helpful to me and hopefully to the neighborhood because I'm not at every neighborhood meeting. I have another question. And Tony, it might be for you as much as for Diane Barrett. The agreement says, see, DOT will consider abandonment of Brighton Boulevard. What's it mean will consider I mean, is it going to be abandoned or not?
Speaker 5: Abandonment is performed as an action of the commission. That action has not happened. So as part of our agreement, once it's finalized at this level, we will take it to our Transportation Commission. At that point, our commission will always rules on abandonment of state owned properties. Now, this is a section of old historic connector in there that really doesn't serve as a a an interstate or a highway or a state local collector. It really serves as more of a local road, and it's just something that has been on our system for way too long.
Speaker 6: So I think we discussed this in the meeting and I'm always interested in it because I've had constituents who would love to see devolution of Colfax Boulevard so that we could make it a little more urban and, you know, be a little freer with the access points and whatnot. But this is a very short stretch that you're talking about.
Speaker 5: Less than a mile, I believe it's less than a mile.
Speaker 6: Okay. Already those those are my questions on the transportation piece. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Well, there you go, Councilwoman Ortega. You're up.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Let's see what you make coming back to the microphone, please. So you described a process that the city is going to engage in prior to the EIA being released. So what I'm not clear about is if Denver is going to receive that information prior to the release or if you're just prepping for the release of the final year. We're prepping for the release of the final. EA's will receive.
Speaker 4: It at the same time as the.
Speaker 7: Public does in January of 2016. Okay. Are there ongoing negotiations between Denver and CDOT around some of the other issues that were in many of the responses that came from the neighborhood? Some of them came from city council. Some of them came from some of the neighborhood associations. You know, Denver had a lot of comments as well that overlapped with some of those issues that came from those various groups that I just mentioned. So are there still some of those ongoing negotiations happening right now? What we are working with Don on is the preparation.
Speaker 4: For the RFP for the contractors.
Speaker 7: See, that is we received five responses, four qualifications. And in those.
Speaker 4: Technical.
Speaker 7: Conversations, we are working on things like the air quality, the construction, how.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 7: Traffic mitigation for soils or I miss mitigation maybe isn't the right word.
Speaker 4: Sorry, it's a little late for me. I'm in awe of all of you.
Speaker 7: But anyway, materials handling, that type of thing that we were always.
Speaker 4: Keep in mind and review the comments.
Speaker 7: That were provided to us and that we did during the year to put in place into the contract the right things.
Speaker 4: To address them.
Speaker 7: So if they're in the contract and we assume that some of those things are going to be clearly addressed in the final year if it's part of what's being negotiated between Denver and Cedar. Yeah. As a part of the RFP and Tony, you can jump in here. Things that go in there would be what the contractors would.
Speaker 4: Need to respond to. Do you want to add?
Speaker 5: Again. Tony DeVito, project director. To answer that question, there was over 900 or 2000 comments through the supplemental draft. Yes. That are being responses. Are we prepared? And those will be released as part of the office. In addition to that part of the office, there is another 30 day comment period that ensues along with we'll have scheduled meetings with the public in August, August 18th, 19th and 20th, where we will go back out and talk about the office. We'll talk about a little bit of the transparency requirements in what's involved in a public private partnership. Like I said, again, 30 day review period and then public meetings also in January with the release of the office.
Speaker 7: So the public meeting in August will be just to convey to the community what the process will be for when the final year is released. Correct. Correct. Okay. So the since I have you up there, Tony did draft the supplemental draft called for the lead over the highway being mitigation.
Speaker 5: Correct.
Speaker 7: So why is it that Denver is being asked to pay for the some of the improvements and the maintenance of that lit? Because I've been told by a C dot person and this was when several of us went and did the tour in Seattle of Delayed so we could see what that looks like and how they were maintained. We were told that anything that is considered mitigation is the responsibility of CDOT to maintain it. And, you know, in all the communication that was with the neighborhoods, the neighborhoods were told they would have input into designing it. And that's been sort of a separate process that ended up happening with Denver Public Schools. I think there will be some benefit to the neighborhood, and I'm grateful that it's not going to be gated or locked most of the time, as was originally talked about. But help me understand why Denver is paying for that when it is considered mitigation, which is normally the responsibility of the transportation agency.
Speaker 5: It's a fair question. You know, as we as we've worked through this shared negotiation, it is very evident that what we want to provide as the identified mitigation to the school and as a connection to the two communities, wasn't met with full acceptance of this. The city and some of the other members that we were working with identified additional types of uses on top. You seek a balance point, especially when you start looking at maybe some of the different types of loading that can associate with that. And we meant we came up with the agreement that fine, whatever is ultimately designed on top, we will design and pay for that structural underneath. And then as as a good negotiation, you have to look at then the tradeoffs. You know, as far as anybody that would we would probably want to encourage some sort of trust development or something to come in here and really be the the group that maintains this. Especially when we get into some of the landscaping grasses, that's just not see, that's fortes.
Speaker 7: So if it's a third party, but the cities in this agreement obligating themselves to pay for the ongoing maintenance, then the long term expectation is that Denver's going to pay the cost of some third party to handle the maintenance. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. That's very disturbing that we on the hook for what could be a 50 year project, assuming that lasts longer then than an elevated structure where, you know, the first few years, it's going to be nice, it's going to look nice, but over time it will deteriorate. And, you know, it's subject to annual appropriation from the city to ensure that the funding continues to be there. We're obligating taxpayers to $2.5 million for the next 30 years. These are concerns. So I guess. I guess I'm preaching now, so I'm not going to continue. I know Councilwoman Kennedy had some additional questions, but I guess I'm disturbed that we're we're giving up so much right now and any leverage we have to ensure that the kinds of things that we want to see in the final year, there's no guarantee. And to I mean, for me, this is very similar to when we were asked to approve a proclamation committing to the preferred alternative where we hadn't seen the supplemental draft of what was going to be in there. And again, this was Denver had been having conversations with CDOT about, you know, what was going to happen at Vasquez and Colorado Boulevard and. This is very similar to that, where we don't know what's going to be in the final e-mails. But we're asking we're being asked to make commitments now about. You know, the drainage project is absolutely critical for all of these neighborhoods. And I support the drainage project, but I'm I'm having heartburn with how we're doing this by putting all of these things together and yet not ensuring that the things that need to happen to these neighborhoods which have paid the price for this highway project. And Tony, as you well know, under the NEPA process in Title six, which is part of the Civil Rights Act and part of the, you know, environmental justice, that has to happen with this project. These neighborhoods can look at past harm to these communities. And it's frustrating to know that that stuff is sort of being pushed off to a back burner and being told, trust me, these neighborhoods have heard that too many times. I mean, you know, the on and off ramps don't get maintained ever in these neighborhoods. And we're talking about the lead over the highway that's going to have some beautification improvements. So, you know, we're not only talking about the on and off ramps and what's going to happen with those and what the retaining walls are going to look like and some of those other kinds of things. So I guess I'm just very concerned and disturbed and. We've been involved in this process for the last two and a half years on a weekly basis, sitting in on meetings with with Saeeda and with Denver and trying to work through ensuring full engagement with the neighborhoods and. You heard people here talking tonight. They didn't know about any of these details. And, you know, yes, the drainage has been part of the conversations, but not the details of how all of this was going to be financed and what kind of long term commitments we're asking Denver taxpayers to make on this. So I'm going to stop with that so that other colleagues can ask their questions.
Speaker 2: Councilman Canete, you're back.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Two areas of question. Yes, stay there. So my previous questions just to share were based on the testimony that surprised me. I did not know. We'd never had a dedicated meeting about drainage. That's to me, just a missed opportunity that I did not know about until tonight's testimony. What I expected to hear a lot about is the transportation project and how people feel about it generally. And so that that I know you've been meeting about and that I knew that we would have questions about. So so that's where I'm moving and that is the question about the ten lanes. So we haven't actually had this discussion in this chambers before. And because we are now contributing money to a transportation project that as drafted has ten lanes, I think it's important that we have that conversation. So can you speak to. The justification? Well, first of all, actually, let's go back because there was a comment made by one of the speakers that I want to clarify when we had. And Diane Barrett, you may be the one to do this, because this was probably before Tony took over when we were going to do the replacement of the viaduct with a bump north. Was that an eight lane project or attending a project? I believe that was ten lanes as well. Okay. So so it sounds like that that addition of a lane was not new to the partially covered lower. One of our speakers thought that it was. Okay. So then back to Tony, then talk about please the reasoning in particular on the need for the additional lane.
Speaker 5: So when we look at a project and after all the years of disagreement and being stymied on a decision, the partially lowered culvert alternative is one that finally kind of made up for the sins of the past, actually got the community on board, that there was a way to reconnect the community. Now, I'll remind this council that this alternative is a couple hundred million dollars more expensive to provide this type of mitigation versus replacing it with another elevated structure. So when we start talking about costs for those mitigations, that's that's a conversation outside of this room that I have a lot of times explaining why we're spending that much more for this mitigation once we're into this trenching and building a lowered section, unlike a replacing a bridge with a bridge where if in future growth we have to add capacity. It's not as hard to do with adding extensions on piers and adding additional girder lines. So we took an extra hard look at the traffic growth numbers provided by Dr. COG and had to make what is the most prudent and best use of sustainable decisions for the taxpayers of Colorado. And that is the ten lane template. It is clearly identified in any of the alternatives. But once we get into this trenching situation, we cannot start smaller. There is no application of saying no. We'll take a smaller template and then a bigger bite later. This is what the growth projects. This is what we see from the Dr. COG model and we cannot build something that's not sustainable. Going back and correcting this is not a viable solution.
Speaker 4: So if I can ask about the Dr. COG model, because I was, you know, being one of Denver's reps to Dr. COG, I was part of a meeting where they went through the history. And so I just want to confirm that you are aware that the model that they are currently using is not the model that those that that that model was a prior model. That, that if we were to run the model today, it would be run with totally different technology than was used for that model. So you're aware of that and still feel like. That's the model you're going to rely on.
Speaker 5: From the team of experts that we have on the project. That is the correct projection to be using as we move forward. Correct.
Speaker 4: So has there been any conversations about proceeding with the project? Should I mean, should the. I don't even know if that's possible for the final environmental impact statement to say yes, partially covered, lower option, but not ten lanes. But I mean, what is. Is that is that a conversation that we can pursue in terms of limiting the footprint of this project?
Speaker 5: So the answer for the Federal Highway Administration, who was the ultimate signature of the document? You clear the window that is needed once you after a record a decision. If there's ever any discussions on any modification that comes afterwards and you have to demonstrate viable cost benefit and valid reasons why you would build something less than what was ultimately cleared in the record of decision. But that is the process that's used that we've used on other projects.
Speaker 7: Okay, we won't see the road till next year.
Speaker 4: So I guess my next area of questioning is really a question about the mitigation. And so some of the members of the public were not here. When I kind of read you the riot act last time on first reading, this is one of those two reading agreements. So they were here previously and stood up there. Can you commit now that you would amend this IGA to put in writing in contract with Denver other areas of mitigation that are agreed to in the future?
Speaker 5: Should we kind of rephrase my last comment? I mean, this is an agreement. It's we can make tweaks and modifications if need be. But the binding contract that lasts for a long, long time is the record. A decision? The record a decision will identify and indoctrinate those mitigations that are committed to. And so whoever is up here from seed out in the years ahead, phase two, whenever anything is completed, that is what binds the Department of Transportation and FAA CWA with the commitments made those that's that's what we've done on numerous other records of decisions that's the binding contract. This is an agreement.
Speaker 4: Can I ask a question for the city attorney who has standing to enforce the IGA as compared to who has standing to enforce a record of decision and in particular going to get really legal everyone's sorry our third party beneficiaries do they have standing in either of those in terms of or I'm asking the city where do we get to enforce or have standing to enforce? But then secondly, where would third party beneficiaries homes that were due mitigation improvements, communities that were do investments, things like that.
Speaker 8: With Sean Sullivan, the city attorney's office. With regard to the Iwga, the city and the state are the parties to the agreement, so they would be the parties who'd be able to enforce it. Specifically, we didn't allow for third party beneficiaries. With regard to the record of decision, that's not a contract per se. Well, Mr. DeVito, it's an enforceable document that requires the state and the federal government to.
Speaker 2: Adhere to the.
Speaker 8: Mitigation that's required in that document. It's not a contract, per se, but it would be something that would be enforceable by other parties if if they weren't following it. And without going into a lot of detail, that's the best I'm going to give you tonight.
Speaker 4: All right. Well, that's an area we need to continue, because I guess what I heard you say is I didn't actually hear you give an answer to whether you would amend the saiga in. My concern is that if there is a greater level of protection for the people of Denver to have you commit to the mitigation, even if it duplicates what's in the record of decision, if there may be a compelling legal reason why it's important for you to commit to those things in this type of agreement versus just having it in a record of decision. I don't want to rely on an act of Congress to try to compel performance if I have an easier way to enforce. So. So what I'm getting at is I think I mean, the question people have had about is this it's not the last bite at the apple. I want to know what the next bite of the apple looks like. And I want it to look like this. I want the next bite at the apple to be that, yes, we can enter into a contract between Denver and see that to clarify any remaining mitigations that get agreed to. That's the answer I'm looking for. I don't know what I'm going to get it, but that's what I'm looking for.
Speaker 5: Counsel. I would probably suggest that we would just write a new figure if there was things that developed as we went through here. I mean, what we're trying to do is identify the the key part of this is the drainage. And to give a level of comfort to the bidders that CDOT and city and county of Denver are in partnership. You know, that's that's what's needed right now to move forward and not move prescriptive. In my 24 years as a civil servant, often to often see that and this is really what the the crest of this agreement is. And so if we had to come up with something else, the partnerships that have struck, we'd strike another idea.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. So Diane and Leslie, if you can help explain to everyone here what the structure is for negotiating with the whole issue of I-70, because it can get a little bit confusing and there can appear that there's a lot of layers of bureaucracy, which is diminishes trust. I know that both of you worked very, very hard and as did see that to come to this point and it's frustrating not to be able to communicate what the city has gained and how much support has moved in terms of trying to get to this intergovernmental agreement. So what I would like for you to talk to me about is the internal structure of the city, and I want you to talk about that so that people can sort of be clear about how those decisions are made. And then if you have ideas about. How we how the city communicates, where you work, how you're doing on each of these mitigation things that are 1900 to 1000 different things, because we worked really hard to thread it all the way through from the neighborhood and issues that they had, the nonprofits, the churches worked with city council , worked with the city of Denver, all these different layers to get on one page in terms of the the mitigation that you have in front of you. I know that's a lot, too, when we start all over.
Speaker 4: No, please don't. Thank you, Councilwoman, I. I was hoping to have an opportunity to say, because people. Some people are stressing that the city's paying all this money. We are getting a lot.
Speaker 7: We are getting a lot, sweetheart.
Speaker 4: Agree to build the cover.
Speaker 7: Absolutely. And they will. And they have.
Speaker 4: Never faltered from that, not once. But they didn't agree to.
Speaker 7: Make it what we want it to be. Brad.
Speaker 4: I may ask Brad to come up if you guys have a if you feel like a few minutes to talk about urban design and to talk about the kinds.
Speaker 7: Of things like the.
Speaker 4: Bookends that are so.
Speaker 7: Important to the city, that's, you know, it can't it can't.
Speaker 4: Be important to see that it's not what they do, but it is what we do. We build cities here. Brad, would you mind? Brad, you can talk just a.
Speaker 7: Little bit about the.
Speaker 4: Bookends and the things we're asking for on the cover.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Pat Buchanan.
Speaker 0: Executive director, community Planning and Development. And our team has been involved in some of the work helping the process with the design of the led the community process. And Steve Nally, who's been the rock star in front of you most of the evening, is here also and can give you more detail to that if you'd like. But in terms of the lid, a couple of things we learned and really pushed hard for was from from visiting the lid in Dallas that is very similar in sort of how it can tie together to two parts of the city that were were affected by a historic highway alignment. And what we noticed at that location was that the lids at either end ended with a street that crossed. And we know that one of the most important things that the lid does besides create activity on the lid is connect north and south, reconnect these historic neighborhoods. And those connections happen as much or more at the streets. And what happens at the edges of those streets, not just the lid. And so what I'm saying is that if we end the lid with a street and don't complete that street on both sides of the street, east and west side of the street, we don't we weaken the actual strength of the connection, north and south. And so rather than having the lid end with the road, the bookends extend the lid so that we finish a complete street on each side of those streets, both East and West End, and to that to the tune of about 50 feet, I believe, on to the West . And how much? 60 feet to the west and to the east ends of the lid. So those are the additional cars that we felt were really important to leverage the North-South connectivity. And I also would add that in terms of the slip ramps that are being talked about and the width and I agree that the width and every foot matters in this project, no doubt about it. But please also know that it isn't just the width of the cut itself. It is. It is the roads to the to both the north and south. And so those alignments, the the slip ramps actually allow the width, the whole the width of the overall assembly of the highway from north to south to be less. And that's because it allows a tighter diamond and steel vasquez interchange and allows us to create more developable area at the northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast quadrants of that intersection. That's true from a purely planning perspective, why we felt that the slip ramps was such an important piece. So again, not just where the where the retaining walls are, but actually if you look at the whole assembly of the East-West Highway.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Brad. And then I would like to say that.
Speaker 7: I would also like to say.
Speaker 4: That.
Speaker 7: The the.
Speaker 4: Importance of the way we work with Scott and the.
Speaker 7: Way we have developed the relationship.
Speaker 4: With Scott is great. Leslie Thomas and Gretchen Haller from the Department of Finance and I were primarily charged with this work of working with Scott. But in addition, all of our teams were behind us and with us. Kerry Kennedy was there every step of the way, looking at all the numbers working and all the numbers. This has not been individual folks. It's been teams at the city working for the best interests of the city. Scott has agreed not just to work with us, but they've embedded Leslie and their technical.
Speaker 7: Review team for the bidders.
Speaker 4: They've embedded me in the finance team looking at bidders and making those selections. This is almost unheard of for folks across the country, and this is cooperation that will benefit all of us tremendously as we go forward. So going forward, as Leslie told you about the new process or the process for the office, we will be looking
Speaker 7: . When once the FDIC.
Speaker 4: Comes out, one of the main things we'll be looking at is what they did and didn't do of the things we all asked for. And we'll have conversations and we'll have discussions and we'll have negotiations around that. And I'm looking forward to that. And I'm looking forward to involving the new council in that. So does that help.
Speaker 7: Councilwoman? Is it just me? Yes, it does. And the unfortunate thing, Karma, is that you guys are working so, so difficult. You're working so hard and lots of difficult situations and the neighborhood can't see it. And I just don't know how through this process there is some trust that's built and the realization that, you know, you're doing your best to do right by the neighborhood. So that's something that will be dealt with.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to ask Brad a question about the slip ramps. If you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. So manager of Public Works, Jose Cornejo, I guess that's executive director now. Manager had said that they looked at how to try to reduce the footprint and there was about eight feet of savings. But when we look at adding in the slip ramps, you add in the ramp and the shoulder. So what does that come out to? I thought it was about 24 feet per ramp.
Speaker 0: But you're talking about everything inside the retaining walls?
Speaker 7: No, I'm talking just about the slip ramps.
Speaker 0: Right. Which are inside the retaining walls. Correct. Right. And I'm talking about the impact, the opportunity that adding the slip ramps inside the retaining wall presents in terms of reducing the additional paved footprint north and south of the retaining walls at the Steel Vazquez interchange.
Speaker 7: What I'm trying to find out is how much more feat does it add to the footprint by putting in the slip ramps? Isn't that about 48 feet? Because it's about 24 feet per per lane. When you add in the shoulders.
Speaker 0: I can't. You know.
Speaker 7: So we save eight feet by trying to reduce the footprint. But we're we're actually adding almost 50 feet by putting those slip ramps in. This is what I got from an engineer. Okay, so.
Speaker 0: I'm an artist, you know that.
Speaker 7: Just making up these numbers.
Speaker 0: I don't have that answer. The reason we have been so supportive of the slip ramp option is that it produces many acres of developable area in the at the steel Vasquez interchange that we believe is really critically important connective tissue at that interchange and potentially could be as a location for a second load down down the road
Speaker 7: . Okay. Thank you. I was just trying to get clarity on.
Speaker 0: An.
Speaker 7: Actual footprint of the corridor through these neighborhoods. So the 300 foot wide swath. Would you just clarify that? That goes from Brighton to. Is that Quebec? Is that what's. What's the Eastern most?
Speaker 0: That's not cool. I don't know where the.
Speaker 7: Distance that that width of the corridor will carry. I know there were some additional things that were requested by Denver at I believe. Hallie Was that one of the interchanges? DIANE And then there was another one, I believe, at Quebec. So that in the future we have the ability to add additional lanes at Quebec and Peoria. Peoria. Those are the two places where the bridges will be wide enough to accept a bigger Peoria and a bigger.
Speaker 4: Quebec when that time is right. Money is.
Speaker 7: Available, okay? But that's not part of the $1.8 billion for now. The the the widening of Quebec and the widening.
Speaker 4: Of Peoria are not included. No, just the widening of the highway.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. I'm done with my question. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Bob.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Since some folks in the public have pointed out that I'm not going to be in office very long after I make this decision tonight, I just have to ask this question. And it's based on the fact that I heard from a constituent today, in fact, that part of the reason they're saying defer this decision to a future council is that we are spending quite a bit of money. We are. Looking at sizable budget budget commitments in in a number of these decisions we we heard about the North this talk show did night nation on western this year we put a lot of money into Brighton Boulevard. We've got the river itself project. We're talking about I-70 right now. If $10 million in infrastructure into the DIA development, we had a big presentation on Bettcher and the Performing Arts Center. So my question is for finance or for the administration? What's left for input from future council members? What can we do about the rest of the city? Will there be anything left? And how is this administration going to approach that question? Because they're going to ask it.
Speaker 4: I'm the only one that stood up. Okay. Well, there's a lot left, and there's a lot of innovation that's going to have to happen among your colleagues. Those of you who are still.
Speaker 7: Here.
Speaker 4: And work with administration and the agencies to make these things happen. But I'm I'm I've done Brad in tonight, so I won't ask him again. But Brad is in charge of Brad and others are in charge of.
Speaker 7: Three.
Speaker 4: Massive planning projects right now, downtown, 16th Street Mall, The Better and the Arts Complex and the Convention Center.
Speaker 6: I sort of included those in my list. We've already been briefed on those. I know those are coming. What else is left? Sun Valley isn't huge priority.
Speaker 4: The mayor will be working with you on several projects having to do with Sun Valley related to Sun Valley. In the next few months we'll be working. And you did include the river projects. Those things.
Speaker 7: We have the the.
Speaker 4: New.
Speaker 7: Owners at the what we call.
Speaker 4: Gates Broadway site. And that's enormous. And that's a big, big project that the new council will be working on.
Speaker 6: My question is, will there be funding for all the CIP requests that come across generally throughout the city? I know there are a lot of things on the plate, but how are you going to make those decisions when we're obligating so many money, so much money, including those things you just mentioned?
Speaker 7: A lot of things will not be.
Speaker 4: From capital budget of the city. A lot of things will have to be public private partnerships. And Gretchen can talk to you more about that and Gretchen will talk to you about several other things as well. Good evening. Members of council.
Speaker 7: I'm Gretchen Haller. I'm the city's deputy chief financial officer. I'm happy to have a chance at the microphone because the rest of the team had been up here the whole night.
Speaker 4: So thank you for your.
Speaker 7: Question for this specific iwga. We are very happy about the financing that's proposed behind it, namely because it's very difficult for the city to pay for $37 million worth of.
Speaker 4: Transportation enhancements.
Speaker 7: In a single year. That is not the size of our annual CIP. So the fact that Seedat was willing to partner with us on a financing that is comparable to what the city would have been able to do in our own financing and take the upfront carrying costs of that financing through to the completion of the asset
Speaker 3: . When it is.
Speaker 7: Available in 2022 really gives us the ability to ramp up and accommodate that $2.68 million payment beginning in 2022, so that it will.
Speaker 4: Not have.
Speaker 7: A significant impact on our annual CIP. So we have the time to plan for that. We do not have the.
Speaker 4: Carrying costs for the finance.
Speaker 7: We do not have capitalized interest in accommodating that cost. So that is something that we were pleased to be able to work with SEEDAT on for the wastewater costs. I would just add that we have a number of different funds in the city. The city is is funded for capital improvements. That is a separate fund from our wastewater enterprise fund. So the cost of the drainage will be paid for through the Wastewater Enterprise Fund. As I did note on first reading of this project of this idea, the Budget Management Office is already planning on coming forward City Council. As a part of our 2016 budget preparation, we have a need to request a rate increase for the wastewater fund. We had our last rate increase in 2011 and in the meantime we've had increasing capital costs. So we need that rate increase for the long term sustainability of the fund. In addition, we in addition, we have a need for.
Speaker 4: An enhanced water quality program. And what works well in this case.
Speaker 7: Is that the Montclair Basin, which is included in the combined drainage project, is being.
Speaker 4: Proposed not as a typical.
Speaker 7: Pipe under the ground. It's being proposed as a wonderful and big water quality project that really supports the work we need for the Platte River. So in addition to the other projects or recognizing the other projects that Diane mentioned, we will continue to look for ways to creatively finance them. You'll notice that with the National Western Center we're looking to lodgers. Tax Carry had talked about that, but that is asking the voters to approve the extension of lodgers tax that's paid for by visitors for a visitor facility. That's the kind of access we look to in all of our financing. We'll continue to look for creative approaches like that and all the while be very cognizant of the city's triple-A rating and maintaining that as well.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. I that was an excellent answer in explaining why this is a good financing plan for this project. I will just say now that we don't have to bring in during comments that we're still not talking about spreading improvements equitably. We're committing the CIP for any number of years on the 2.68, spreading these equitably around the city, those areas that really need improvement, those areas that really contribute to the well and a good part of the capital of this city. And I'm not hearing that answer tonight, Sky.
Speaker 4: Sure. Sky, start from the mayor's office.
Speaker 7: That's an excellent point, Councilman Robb.
Speaker 4: You've made it a couple of times and just want to put on record here. I think you and I have discussed.
Speaker 7: It, that equity around the city is a really important value and it's something we're looking towards in all of these.
Speaker 4: Projects. We actually have a subcommittee of the.
Speaker 7: Group talking about some of the projects. You talked about the downtown projects that will focus on making sure that we are looking.
Speaker 4: Equitably across the city for other issues.
Speaker 7: And one thing that Gretchen didn't mention mentioned, but I know.
Speaker 4: She would be happy to add to if I get anything wrong, is.
Speaker 7: We've been very, very careful to also preserve our geo capacity, our general obligation bond capacity. And that's something.
Speaker 4: We're going to have to undertake in the next few years to determine what those.
Speaker 7: Projects are.
Speaker 4: And that will have to be an equitable conversation across the city of where needs are and where we prioritize them, not just in this area, but everywhere.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Because I do want our successors to be successful in bringing forward their priorities. Yeah. Thank you, Sky.
Speaker 7: That's an excellent point.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb, Councilwoman Monte.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I have a question for Brian. Are you still here, Pinkerton? My question is about 47th in York, which is a huge safety issue, as you are aware. Can you tell me if that the idea where we are with with 47th in New York and if the city through negotiations, try to see if that would pay for those improvements.
Speaker 5: Yes. Brian Pinkerton with Public Works. For a long time, the community has voiced the priority of the 47th in York, and we in public works in the city have agreed that that is a critical crossing that needs to be addressed. We worked extensively with the seed art team to look at if there might be some way to incorporate some aspect of the I-70 project to include an improved crossing at 47th and York. Ultimately, what was a decided or agreed upon between the entities was that this was a city responsibility to deal with this crossing and that there might be certain aspects of the project depending on. As the ultimate design proceeded on I-70, there may be certain aspects that would help make an improvement at the crossing easier to accomplish, but that it really fell on the city shoulders to deal with this because it wasn't an interregional type of mobility challenge. It was really a challenge for the communities in the area. And so the city has allocated, I believe, $200,000 in this calendar year to begin a study to look at what the options are to make an improvement in that area. There's more funding following in 2016, and we are going to be commencing that study very shortly.
Speaker 7: May I ask one more question? And then the issue related to truck traffic and the rerouting of trucks during construction? Me, I don't know if that wants to answer that, but also if the trucks are going to be rerouted during construction, shouldn't they just always be rerouted out of the neighborhood as well?
Speaker 1: Tony, do you want to answer?
Speaker 5: Tony DeVito. See that assembly project director. So with regard to truck during trucks, during construction, we will do construction specifications, especially to avoid staging areas in the neighborhood to be sure that the traffic methods that are proposed by the developer keep sacred that community. Be sure that the the phasing of the construction doesn't induce traffic in there. Those will be part of the specifications. So during construction will definitely be working with that. When the project is ultimately done. It goes back to being an interstate with a relocated 46th Avenue. And so then again, interstate. So we're going to be back to having the truck traffic.
Speaker 7: So was that one thing that the neighborhood can continue to give input on? Or is that part a done deal?
Speaker 5: You know, it really comes down to our federal highway administration making that ultimate call. And once you're building an interstate to its ultimate template and it's safe, it is important to maintain that truck connectivity. There is if you look at the stretch of the corridor, it's not only a community, it's it's 1100 businesses that rely on that commerce and that that movement of commerce and goods.
Speaker 7: So I just want to know what my response to that is, that it's very, very important to the neighborhood that trucks be rerouted out of their neighborhoods. And every effort to see that in the city of Denver can make it so that they don't need to deal with that. I would really appreciate that on every level that you can do that and the neighborhood continues to talk about that. But we continue to sort of stay in the same place. And I know that it's it's a huge impact to them. So I just want to reiterate that.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I just want to piggyback on this and highlight that although the truck traffic is only 10% of the traffic that drives on this corridor. It's 50% of the pollution that is sort of left in the neighborhood as those vehicles drive through. So addressing the health impact to the neighborhood is a critical part. And when you look at the end of the day, how wide this is going to be and how much more traffic is going to travel on this corridor. And in granted, the, you know, the preferred alternative that takes the traffic below grade is less impactful. Not all areas of the neighborhood are going to be where the wind is at. So it's why trying to move that truck traffic early and why it was important for the highway system to be looked at as a whole in this quadrant as opposed to just the I-70 corridor. It didn't really factor in traffic that should be routed on to 270 or 225 that are not doing local deliveries. And I think that's the most critical part. If people are not doing local deliveries and they don't need to be on I-70, they should be encouraged to be routed down one of those two corridors. Thank you and.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Any other questions? Seen none. Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilwoman Montero.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. As always, everything in global hilarious once a year is never easy. And and there. And no one is ever, ever, ever satisfied. I just want to reassure folks that think that this is not a highway to go out, that I have done my very best to push and push and push and push. And for a neighborhood that felt that they never had any attention by anyone before to shift from. We have more attention than we've ever had before and now we don't have time to even form. A neighborhood group is just amazing to me for, for example, to work on our housing and I'll get to my comments, but to work on a housing committee and then have someone from the neighborhood say, gosh, you know, that wasn't the right thing to do. There should have been a public hearing. You should have done this and that. I want to assure everybody that we are doing the best that we can. And I by no means feel like I'm going out on a low note. I've done my best, best, best work to the best capacity that I have to push for Globeville, various ones here. There's a lot of bureaucracy. There's a lot of layers. There's a lot of work. There's a lot of heavy lifting. But I want to tell the people in the neighborhood from Globeville earlier use once a year that if I believed that anyone was being dishonest, devious, whatever, all the ugly words that were said tonight, I would be the first one to say that, and I do not believe that. We've been working on it for so, so long. And with the support of Mayor Hancock all the way going back to even doing trying to figure out how do we get a tsunami of resources into this neighborhood, how do we turn all of these decisions that we did not make? How do we turn them around and try to get as many resources into Globeville, Elyria, Swansea? How do we try to make right the wrongs that we did not do? But we're here today and we're trying to move forward. And I want to tell everybody here and you can follow me out to my car and you can argue with me all day long. But I tell you, I have never felt that the people from the city and county of Denver have been operating from any devious perspective, anything other than trying to honor what we've been trying to tell the neighbor with what the neighborhood has been trying to tell us. There are so many things coming in the direction of Globeville, hilarious ones here, and they're confusing and they're overwhelming. And it's more than any neighborhood that I know in the city could possibly deal with. But you can deal with it. And you have been and now your voices are heard and now you're empowered. And what I ask is for and what I ask is for the city and county of Denver and see that in whatever way they can. I don't know how to work this miracle. I have no idea how to work this miracle. But the idea of building trust is so important. It may never be built. It was destroyed a long time ago. Do you stop trying? Do you spin out and say, wait till the next council, let them do it? Right. Who's to say that it'll be any better? What if it sets everybody back? What happened? Where. Where did. Where all of a sudden? Because there was an election held on May 5th, that all of a sudden we've lost our intelligence and we can't make decisions anymore. I am not going to kick the can down the road. I know with all my heart, all of the work that's been done by everyone in this room, nobody has stopped. No one has gone this way and said, I can't do it. Oh, my God, the sky is falling. Everybody is pressing forward. And so tonight, I'm going to press forward to and I'm telling whoever is telling me, wait till the next council, because, you know, there are new hope. I can't do that. I was elected to take care of business. And tonight I am supporting this. And all I ask again is the miracle that somehow all of the entities, city and county of Denver C dot and everybody else comes into this neighborhood, that there is an effort by leadership, neighborhood leadership, political leadership, that somehow we begin to build those bridges of trust. Because I will tell you, in this neighborhood, if you don't keep your word, you might as well not even go around writing anymore. You have to keep your word the same way. The neighborhood needs to keep their word to the city. And I've been in situations where people tell me I support that. I support that. And all of a sudden I'm in a public meeting and all of a sudden somebody has amnesia. I don't remember ever supporting that. We I have followed the lead of the neighborhood. I truly believe that I have. And I want to say that I am going out on a high note. And I know that I've brought everything. I have brought my best and brightest game to this situation. So I'm supporting this, and I hope that my colleagues will do the same.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the speakers who stayed late tonight. And I will be supporting the project. And I want to talk about why and why. I also believe that it's important that the vote happen tonight. One of the things that I think the community is asking in the testimony is about whether or not we can both be partners and cooperators as well as advocates. And I think that that's an important question. So we've described and we've lauded the city staff for cooperating with that. And I think the part that Councilwoman Monteiro mentioned that folks cannot see is the places at which you are acting as an advocate, which means pushing, shoving, challenging and demanding things on behalf of the voices that are here. So that's the challenge, right? Your public face that you have presented is one where you are cooperating and there has been no visibility to the places we are pushing, shoving, challenging and advocating. And so but I think that in part that's the role we're playing up here tonight. And that is the role that I think that I hope folks can see that you have in this council. Advocates, you know, and I think you have them in the staff, too. It's just that they do it in the negotiating room and we're doing it from the dais. We have the privilege of doing it publicly in a way that they don't. But it is possible to both be your advocates and challenge and push for further improvements and find areas of common ground. I think those can both exist. And so, you know, that's my commitment to you. So the two pieces that I believe we have done our due diligence anyway, and I really do take exception to the idea that we have not vetted this agreement. I personally have probably spent, I don't know, ten or 12 hours now between the committee meeting and reading and asking questions in between. Others, I'm sure have spent similar amounts of time these agreements, just to be very clear. We've been we've been asking questions for over, what, about 90 minutes now since the public hearing testimony ended. This agreement is vetted. So the advocating for the future is about two things. One, missed opportunity. We did not have a public meeting where we said to people, we are going to talk about drainage, please come and learn about drainage. We should have done that. We didn't do it. We need to do it going forward. This is a major improvement and it's going to have an impact on as many properties potentially as the I-70 project itself. It is a worthy project. It's a good project. People might have felt that more if they understood it and knew more about it. Missed opportunity. Now we have. Ketchup work to do. So I am an advocate. I will advocate and push that that planning process occurs in an intentional, visible way going forward on the drainage project. Secondly, mitigation, I think you heard many of us asking, demanding, pushing on mitigation. That is an area where I also expect our staff to be advocating for that as well. I expect you to go in a room and ask for things that are not offered and to push for things that the you know, I forget what's the thing before the record of decision, the thing that comes before that if it's not in there, we're going to ask for it anyway and you need to be asking for it. You, as our representatives need to be asking for it. So those expectations are high, but in a similar way. I also have to be honest, right? I have to be honest about the limitations that we all operate under. So, for example, what would materially be different 45 days from now with a record of decision be done? No. Would we, for example, have a significantly different sense of what the mitigation factors to come out in the record of decision are? No. So when will we know those things? We won't know them till the record decision comes out. So. So there's no material difference. There will be no new information today versus 45 days from now. It's simply a request or a lack of trust that we're doing enough vetting. I submit to you that you have advocates, and I submit to you that there's vetting occurring. So a 45 day makes no material difference. If we were to delay it until the record decision came out, though, there would be a material difference, which is we would be six months behind on the drainage project. Okay. And that matters. So that is why proceeding now matters. One of the things that I'm concerned about is folk, folk saying that the agreement is vague. Here's an example. So let's move off drainage. Right. Drainage needs to occur even if I-70 doesn't happen. So I'm glad we've leveraged that money to make it better. And I did review last time, for those who may not have viewed the agreement, has a clear provision that if the record of decision does not decide on this project, that we can go ahead and renegotiate and terminate the agreement we would have to have, but we would have started the drainage project at least so we could continue the drainage project. We may have to scale it down, we may have to change it, but we will have started it. Drainage will be happening, but there are separate pieces, agreement, and I appreciate those who've separated it, which is money into the project. Here's a point of the agreement that is not vague. We do not pay a penny for the transportation project actually until it's completed, not even just before it's approved. But we don't actually start paying till it's completed. So there is not a risk. We are not taking any risk, right. By making this agreement now versus making it after the record decision occurs. The thing that we allow, the one material thing that matters and the reason why I am going to vote for this tonight is it allows us to start the drainage project that is needed. Now. We leverage that money and we leverage urban drainage money immediately. And I wish I wish that that project had been better explained. I wish it had been noticed as its own topic and that we can do some catch up. But that's I can't not proceed with flood protection we know we need because we didn't talk about it well enough. There are places where we missed legal notice and I have voted against things where we had a legal notice obligation and we missed it. And I've said, you know what? We didn't follow the law. We can't do it. That's not the case here. We just didn't get our best, you know? And so but the benefits outweigh the costs. So that's where I'm at. And I know that we have a lot of work left to do, but I submit to you that a delay in the short term would make no material difference, and a delay in the long term would make a significant negative material difference. It's critical that we proceed with improvements. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman and each Councilman Levitt.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I did have something to say, but I don't think any syllable I could utter could add any more detailed reasoning than Councilwoman Kennish has already articulated or any more powerful meaning than Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 5: Has already articulated.
Speaker 0: So I am done for the night.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Never. Councilman, can you top that?
Speaker 5: Great. You make me look like the jerk. Speaking of drainage, I just want to go home and go. Oh, I am. And in addition to being a councilman, I have the privilege to be the chair of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. And I've done that for about a year and a half. Right, Dave? And all they do is talk about flood prevention, flood prevention, flood prevention and flood prevention. And before a couple of years ago, it was just a nice lunch to hang out with other folks from other counties around because we never had floods. We had droughts until a few years ago. And what we were told is that if the events that happened in Boulder and the events that happened in Aurora, which was worse than Boulder happened here, you would have a Katrina style. Disaster. And then how much do you think we'd be paying?
Speaker 0: How much?
Speaker 5: How expensive do you think that would be? 300 million. How horrible would it be to have to bury people in our city? Huh? I visited the Ninth Ward in New Orleans. Those levees were broken because they didn't get invested in. We didn't invest in them. And they're broken there in disrepair. And it's horrible. It's a failure of government. And their basic principle is to protect life and property, the most basic principle of governance. Now, I go a little bit beyond because I'm a liberal, but I'll just say this I am convinced that if we don't do anything about it, we're going to be visiting that scenario sometime in the near future. I haven't seen rain like this either, sir. I have it. And most of that flooding from the planet comes from upstream. Imagine if it hits in Denver. Denver proper, we're in trouble and there is no home in this city that is out of a floodplain that is not going to be impacted by a flood. I guarantee you, even in the highest hill. Right. Here's the thing. We did miss an opportunity. We did miss an opportunity to talk to the public about drainage and flood control and why this why this is important. And for the record, I don't know about you all, but whether it comes from the state, the feds or the city, taxes are taxes and they suck, right? You see them come out of your check. You see them come out of your property taxes. I hate getting taxed. I'm not flipping. Philosophy, sir, I do believe that necessary. These are one of those projects that are necessary, right? Absolutely. And, you know, we had done it a little. Could we have done it a little better? Absolutely. But it pays off in the end. It's an investment and it's investment that community. Now, there's two things wrong. Yes. The flooding, the potential flood. And to that highway. I was part of the yellow shirt brigade four years ago. In oh three, we were going door to door, 8000, 8000 households. And I knocked on plenty of those doors and all those council districts in every neighborhood, from Globeville to Bella, the Green Valley Ranch. And we talked about I-70. That's why I was for the reroute. The second alternative, I mean and guess what? It's not going to happen, right? And I'm not going to go picking out old wounds. Got to move on. It's not going to happen. So the best other alternative, what I heard on the doors was to bury it. I said, Can you make it at least look like Sixth Avenue? I hate that. Well, I love it. I love Sixth Avenue. I love Sixth Avenue. But I hated Sixth Avenue. Now, do we should we talk about a cover over sixth? That would be awesome if we could successfully do it here. Absolutely. But at the end of the day.
Speaker 0: This is a catalytic project. This is a project.
Speaker 5: That we should be focused on and how to leverage those dollars and that investment back into the neighborhoods, jobs, business opportunities. I don't know about that any part of the city, but in my part of the city, there's a lot of construction workers and we've hit we visited the site and three, we buried three, four, three. Three of the workers we talked to were straight up from the neighborhood, recent hires. We got a push for that kind of stuff. That's what turns it around. Now I'm supporting this. Not that my colleagues don't have valid points and they have a valid get us complaints. I think there are like I said, I think we could have done better on the public education side. But that's what we learned from right at the end of the day. That doesn't Trump not doing anything at this site. So I'm supportive. No, I'm all for it. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I'll try to be brief. First of all, I want to thank all of the state and city staff people who have participated in the many, many meetings that we've had with members of city council to ensure that we're, you know, engaged in the process with you. I want to thank the residents for their input and for coming out tonight. And the drainage project is absolutely critical. You know, when it rained last week, I went and drove around to see where we had flooding. And it flooded down on Washington Street and it flooded on 46th Avenue, as it has when we get bad rains year after year. I saw some of the neighborhoods in Councilman Brooks district where where the water was very, very high. This is a critical project for these neighborhoods. I'm struggling with the fact that we have we have mixed all of this together and we still don't have the final year, which has been delayed and delayed and delayed . And I think it's in part because of the dialog that's going on back and forth between Denver and Scott, not trying to work through some of these issues, but to not know that we in fact will have mitigation clearly identified and that those things will be in that final year and that they will follow into the record of decision is is hard for me to to just trust that they're going to be there. And it's not that I don't trust the people. I think we've got great people who are engaged in this process from CEDA and from the city. But I'm looking at history of what's occurred in these neighborhoods and and how there have been promises made. I remember when the widening through Globeville took place in the neighbors were promised that there was going to be beautiful artwork along the wall underneath I-70. And I think one panel got done. And as I continued to ask about that, what I heard was we ran out of money. And I don't want to see that happen with these neighborhoods. These people have paid the price with their lives because of the kind of exposure they've had to the particulate matter. It's why doing the air monitoring before, during and after construction is important to know what kind of health impact will you know folks will be exposed to. I want to know that the doors and windows for people that live within 500 feet of the highway are going to be taken care of. And that it's not just, you know, a portable. Air conditioning system that people are going to get in their homes. The impact to the lungs of small children from all the air quality studies that we have seen that have been published. All you have to do is Google that and you'll see that anybody who lives within 500 feet, the particulate matter, especially the ultrafine, is most deadly to small children. And it's why pushing for these things is critical to ensure that we're not compromising the health of people in most neighborhoods. So I I'm not there yet. I appreciate all the work that's been done in getting us to this point, in trying to move this drainage project forward, which, again, I think is vital to these neighborhoods. But to to just say, you know, we'll keep working on these things. In my mind, there's no reason why those mitigation issues couldn't have been part of this agreement. And what that says to me is where we haven't gotten there and in anything that's not in the final is in the record of decision is not going to be funded. And so to to know that those things aren't part of this agreement are are disturbing and concerning. So I unfortunately, am not going to be able to vote for this tonight. As much as I want to support the drainage project, I wish it could have been separated out because I wholeheartedly support the need for addressing that. But I think you've got the votes here tonight for it to pass. I just. I'm just not there. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. And first, you know, I want to thank everybody for being here and especially folks from Greece who stayed the entire time to stay here. You know, folks who get here at 530, I don't know how you still have your cars. I don't know if you put money in the meters or whatever. But District eight office will help you out District nine in the future. Hey, this is what I lament. I lament the outreach. I lament that we didn't do a better job on the outreach from the city side. I guess I'm a little shocked, only because when the candidates were running for office in April, March and April, one of the questions that we were asked was If a drainage project was leveraged with the I-70 project, would you support it? And it was at a public meeting and whatnot. And I had I was under the assumption that this was a known conversation. Now, the specificity of the project, the details of the project were not talked about, obviously, and that's that's what we have to to work on. The other thing that I lament in this project is I think there has been a lot of good work on the part of public works to put together this regional drainage system that has not been talked about and what it's going to do for this area and the number of neighborhoods that will be impacted. There are people sitting up watching this tonight that cannot make it here because they were stuck in those storms over the last couple of months. And they wanted a specific answer from the city, including my wife. And and and they were literally concerned and in working with the city for the last four years. We cannot do projects of this size unless they're leveraged. I mean, that's the complication of this idea and this deal. And I know that there's a lot of mistrust. And we you know, I think Councilman Monteiro put it really well that there's a lot of mistrust, but we have to believe that we've got to come together in the future. And so, you know, as a person taking over this area in just the next couple of weeks, you know, that's the that's the thing that we're going to be working on is building the trust and making sure individuals know that we are working our tails off for the best output for the community. And the community needs to know they need to work their tails off to get the best from the city. You know, and I'll just leave it at that. So thank you guys so much for being out here. Thank you. For the folks who have worked so hard on this project. And I am I am believing in the future that this is going to be something that we all can be proud of. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, any other comments? 381 as amended. And Madam Secretary, my fingers.
Speaker 3: Are frozen that.
Speaker 2: The screen just froze up. They might have to do this old school, but we'll still do it nonetheless. And we have to also vote on the companion bill once you're done with that. So let's start with 381 as amended. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. And she just. It's frozen.
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 2: Even the screens have called it. The night.
Speaker 7: Fell asleep.
Speaker 3: Brooks.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Can each layman write? Lopez.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 7: Montero I.
Speaker 3: Nevett I.
Speaker 7: Ortega No.
Speaker 3: Rob.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Eight eyes. One knee, the eyes.
Speaker 2: One knee. 381, as amended, has passed. Councilman Leavitt, will you please put a companion bill for 30 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Mr. President. And I just want to point out that we have had five public hearings, but managed to pass ten bills. So I think that's a testament to the kind of work this council puts in. So I move that council bill 430 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: I need a verbal second.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'll have to look up and down to see if there are any comments. Scene on Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Brooks.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Can each I Liman. Hi Lopez. Hi Montero. Hi Nevitt. Hi Ortega. Hi Rob. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please, first of all, announce the results.
Speaker 3: Nine eyes, nine eyes.
Speaker 2: Cancer before 30 has passed. Seen no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Was it?
Speaker 0: Denver eight on TV and online to stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 4: You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation, the High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the Bridge Enterprise regarding Montclair and Park Hill basin drainage improvement and I-70 transportation enhancements.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the Bridge Enterprise regarding Montclair and Park Hill basin drainage improvements and I-70 transportation enhancements; the estimated total costs of $134 million for the drainage project will be shared by the City and CDOT, 60% and 40% respectively; the City's contribution to the transportation project will be $37 million (201522456). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review date is on 7-20 -15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-3-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06292015_15-0414
|
Speaker 8: So I'm going to read this finding, as you said, Charlie, finding a solution for completing the middle section of Cherry Creek South Drive between University and Colorado Boulevard has been quite a challenge for many years. But as Albert Einstein once said, You never fail until you stop trying. During the past few months, the residents of Cherry Creek Tower have been able to enter a successful dialog with the city, a process that's been defined by each party's ability to use some old fashioned skills. The ability to listen. The willingness to negotiate. The wisdom. To accept compromises that allow each to feel that its legitimate needs will be met. There are many people in this city to thank for supporting Cherry Creek Tower as the association has confronted the ramifications of losing a large number of our parking spaces. Among those people are Dennis Araghi, now retired from Public Works and apparently walking around with a golf club in his hands instead of his briefcase. Thanks, Dennis, wherever you are. Dave Hunt, Singer and Public Works is proving equally supportive as our new contact going forward. And the civil engineers and landscape architects working with us on behalf of the city have made the process of fleshing out all the necessary details, both a pleasurable and a creative experience. The entire project has a firm direction now, and we would like to express our appreciation for the city's willingness to engage in what I will call a creative win win solution to a long standing dilemma. It reminds me of something else that Einstein once said Creativity is intelligence. Having fun? In closing, we'd like to thank Charlie Brown for all his efforts on behalf of the city and its constituents and for the opportunity to be here this evening. Thank you so.
Speaker 7: Much. Thank you, Frank. Thanks to all of you. And thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: And congratulations, Councilman. Councilman Nevitt. Under bills for final consideration, you called.
Speaker 4: Out Council Bill.
Speaker 0: 402. What would you like to do with this Bill?
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am. I need to offer two minor but important amendments.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, will you please put this bill on the floor?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And move that bill for order to be published. Actually, it's final consideration. Oh, it's consideration. Okay. The place upon final thought. I'll do it again. I believe I move that council bill for it to be placed upon final consideration.
|
Resolution
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way at 3100 Cherry Creek South Drive, with reservations.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Vacates land at 3100 East Cherry Creek South Drive in Council District 6. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-20-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 6-18-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06292015_15-0402
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And move that bill for order to be published. Actually, it's final consideration. Oh, it's consideration. Okay. The place upon final thought. I'll do it again. I believe I move that council bill for it to be placed upon final consideration. Do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Okay. I need a second. It's been moved and seconded. Councilman Neville, we need a motion to amend.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So there are two amendments. And if we could take them in sequence, that would be great. So I move that Council Bill four to be amended in the following particulars on page three, lines six and seven, strike the clerk file reference 2015 Dash 0264 and insert this is important. 2015 dash 026 for a.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council councilmen Nevett and then Councilwoman Sheperd.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So this this is to change or to update the clerk filing number as a consequence for the. I'm sorry, I'll start again. This is to change the clerk filing number for the amended I.J with Adams County. After the original filing of the document on June 18th, there was some back and forth between our attorneys and their attorneys and some clarifying language. No, no substantive changes have been made, but agreements and changes on clarifying language have been added. And so we need a new clerk filing number to refer to the updated document. The the changes just to outline them for you. There were four changes. One had to do with notice to the the OCC, the Adams County Group involved with the with the IGR in the airport regarding concessions and leasing activity at DIA, we had committed in our in our term sheet and what we had approved at committee and then here last week to give notice to the airport coordinating committee of any new leases and concessions at DIA outside of the terminal complex area. But there was some additional language to properly define what the terminal complex area is, and that's now clarified and is illustrated in the amended Iwga Amendment. Number two, or minor change number two has to do with the procedures for the approval of bioscience businesses on development parcels at DIA. The Intergovernmental Agreement limits bioscience businesses at DIA that would compete with the Fitzsimmons Medical Campus in Aurora, but includes procedures for waiving those restrictions. And the IGA needed to be clarified regarding what those procedures were on how the RCC would grant a waiver for biomedical businesses at DIA. The third minor clarification involved the enforcement of the revenue sharing obligation on the part of Denver, if you recall, were sharing 50% of the tax revenue on the specified development parcels and clarity was added to the proposed IGA that the the the share that Denver would be sharing could not be diverted for any other purpose. And then finally, the, the fourth minor change had to do with the rights of third party beneficiaries under the original IGA, the 1988 IGA, that was with Adams County. But there are provisions that grant cities in Adams County that border the airport, special third party beneficiary status, and those were Aurora and Commerce City. And the the clarifying language that's been added to the a mandatory IGA ensures that Aurora and Commerce City alone as those third party beneficiaries will continue to enjoy this third party beneficiary status. So those are the that's a that's a lot of palaver for the addition of the letter A to a clerk filing number. But that was the the the language that we're adding to the IGA.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Nevett.
Speaker 4: Councilman Shepard. Thank you, Madam President. Pro Tem, I actually called this out because I wanted to call it up for a vote. So I'm assuming you want to do that after the motions. Want to call it out. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's.
Speaker 3: I should work on the amendment first.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. All right. All right. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 3: Nevett I. Ortega, Rob Shepherd, i. Sussman Brooks, i. Brown. I thought I can eat lemon pie.
Speaker 1: Lopez All right.
Speaker 3: Madam President. Hi, Ortega.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Still waiting for councilman parts. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. Council Bill 402 has been amended. Councilman Neville, we need a motion to amend.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. This is the Second Amendment. So I move that council bill 402 be amended in the following particulars on page two, line 20. Strike the quote unquote comma after the word development and insert the following words, quote Without imposing any new tax or increasing any tax rate. Comma.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Gentlemen never do anything additional.
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am. So the purpose of this amendment is just to add some clarifying language to the ballot question that we are sending to the voters to assure them that a yes vote on approving the new a mandatory IGA will not result in any tax increase over and above any current tax rates. There's a number of other items on the ballot this November that have tax issues in them, and we just wanted to make absolutely sure that the voters understood that, that this would be consistent with those other measures in that it would have no impact on anyone's tax rates.
Speaker 0: Thank you to any other members of council have comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Nevitt Hi. Ortega Rob Shepherd. Susman Brooks Brown.
Speaker 4: I thought I.
Speaker 3: Can eat Lemon Lopez. All right. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 402 has been amended. Councilman Lopez, we need a motion to order. Published as amended. Council Bill 4020.
Speaker 1: Madam President, a point of clarification or publish or or on final consideration is it adopted.
Speaker 4: Or published.
Speaker 0: As amended?
Speaker 1: No, I don't think that's right. I think it should be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Unless there's clarification from council. I'm ah council. City Attorney David Barr.
Speaker 8: Madam President. David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney. Because his amendments change neither the title nor does the description of the bill. It can be adopted on final consideration tonight if you choose to do so.
Speaker 0: Thank you. State here.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I order. I order the order. I move that council bill for all to be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council.
Speaker 4: So. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I had asked for this to be pulled out for a vote because I talked about this at great length last week, but I asked a lot of questions of of staff regarding this. And for me, this issue is not just a business deal. It's not just a business agreement between the two counties. What we're talking about here is development of 1500 acres at Dig, yet there is no land use or transportation planning moving forward. At the same time as this ordinance and from what I understood last week, there would not be one before the November vote. I realize that there are those who will say that this is just an opportunity for this conversation to begin, and I appreciate that sentiment. But land use and transportation is very much in the purview of what the city council does. And I cannot feel good about asking voters to vote on something that we don't understand what it is outside of the agreement. The last time I saw some conceptual planning around this issue was in January, which, as we all know, was several months ago. So although I certainly think the fact that Adams and Denver will be sharing tax revenue is historic and, you know, very much something, you know, to be proud of. And that's that level of coordination. And I certainly appreciate all of the work that has gone on behind the scenes between the two counties, and everyone has been involved in this project. And my vote is in no way intended to disparage that. But I just have to say that I'm not comfortable asking the voters to vote on something when I don't even understand what it is. So I will be voting no tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman, never. Did you have another comment?
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam President. And before I go to my comment or really ask a question of the folks at DIA, I just want to point out last week we were graced with the presence of two county commissioners from Adams County here for this historic move forward together. And today we have again county commissioners Steve OTU Recio. Steve, raise your hands so the Denver voters can understand who their partner is. Thank you so much for being here. This is an amazing thing we're doing together. And I really appreciate you being in the chambers with us. So just to I don't know if it would change Councilwoman Sheppard's mind, but to get a little bit more clarity from DIA, I don't know who wants to sort of answer the question. So what is the why is this the proper sequence of moving forward, getting to this historic idea with Adams County? Before we do a detailed land use plan.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm Kim Dan, the CEO of.
Speaker 6: Denver International Airport. We have been working on some planning, as you as you've mentioned, that you have been briefed on. And that work continues that work actually changes with this agreement because it as additional land and it further clarifies what we can and can not do on airport. What I would like to say is we are not going to leave the voters without any.
Speaker 9: Idea of what we're going to.
Speaker 6: Do. We have some conceptual decisions that have been made, and we are going to put together a package that will explain to the best of our ability to our citizens what it is we think we could do on airport. But in terms of having a really detailed land plan, that that still needs some work.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, followed by Councilman Ortega, followed by Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to also say that this is something I'm glad I'm glad to see somebody from Adams County. I know this has been a lot of work. It's a it was a lot of work to get to this actual point where where we're voting on it. You know, it's hard not to see it sometimes if you're really don't if you're not in the mix of things. But when you are, you know. Exactly for some reason or the other, I think a lot of it happened, I think, before even I was conceptualized was there literally there's been a lot of this. You know, we haven't had very good relationships with our neighboring counties. There's a lot of things that folks are still bitter over and sour over. And, you know, ask anybody in the legislature and they'll fill you in on it. You see it on a daily basis out there. The fact that we have this agreement, this inter, this IG is a very good thing and it's a very good thing with an important neighbor because that neighbor is growing as a city. We're growing. You know, there's a lot of folks that, hey, we don't like to see anybody building up this density. Well, we have this area that we believe we're able to develop to help offset offset that, offset that. And also because we have so many people calling Denver home, it's a good thing. The other thing, why I feel comfortable voting for this right now, and this is in no way any any fight that I'm trying to pick up. My colleague, Councilman Shepard, my neighbor, Councilman Shepard, I as a as a US as commissioners as well, and Denver County, I don't feel comfortable planning for property. We don't know. We can't we don't necessarily have the right to not develop. We own it, but we can develop it. And I think it's an act of it's not an act in good faith. If we're already taking that step ahead before the contracts being signed. Right. I would think something was fishy if I was on the Adams County side. And then there goes another two decades of distrust with the two counties. I think this is a good opportunity to do it. If there is any kind of zoning change or land use implementation, I would believe it would come to this body individually to vote on right as a separate as a separate entity in and of itself and as a separate issue. So I think it's going to be a good thing. You know, at the end of the day, this language going to be on the ballot. So. With that. You know, I'm fully supportive.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions. My first one is for David Broadwell. Since you've been here longer than most. When was the last time we actually either updated or adopted a comprehensive plan for the city of Denver? For a strategic plan, whatever you want to call it it.
Speaker 8: You mean a comprehensive plan for the entire city that goes back to the early 2000? I think Councilman Rob might actually have the date more readily at our fingertips than I do, but.
Speaker 0: I think it was before this council came on.
Speaker 8: It was an it was in the year 2000. I knew it was a century.
Speaker 0: Yeah. All right. Was it? So I think that's part of what I'm hearing Councilwoman Shepherd raise. And interestingly, today, I met with one of the new incoming council members who is talking about a strategic plan for the city. Because we do have so many big projects coming forward and looking at how all of that plays into use of water, making sure that we work towards having a sustainable food source because we know not all of our food will continue coming from California because we can't get all of our Colorado water, the Colorado River water down to there before it all dissipates. So I think at some point, this is something that this body needs to begin to talk about. Obviously, we're not going to hold up this bill tonight to do that. But I think it's an important conversation that we need to have, given that as a metropolitan area, we continue to grow. And so I appreciate you raising that point. Councilwoman Shepherd, the other question that I wanted to ask was related to the master plan. Kim, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the microphone, please. You. You made mention of some decisions that have been made with regard to conceptual plans, if you will. I the word you used was conceptual decisions. But I'm just trying to figure out, is there. An updated DIA masterplan that looks at all of this other than what we've seen in some of the Aerotropolis documents, or is this part of what's been negotiated with Adams County during this last year and a half, almost two year negotiation process?
Speaker 6: Councilor one If I could clarify. So when I say we've made some decisions, an example of that would be I think you all have heard us talk in the last couple of years about using the.
Speaker 0: Term Airport City.
Speaker 6: But we don't use that term anymore because we have determined that what we are what we want to do on airport is not build some consolidated development at one point on the airport, but instead we want.
Speaker 0: To develop areas that are contiguous.
Speaker 6: With our neighbors and help to activate off airport development while it activates on airport. So it's decisions like that we have made the actual land use has a lot of work that does have to do with things like utilities, you mentioned and resources then and certainly now that we have the IGA in place and we know the area that we can develop, we will be developing a true land use but we do not have an up to date masterplan.
Speaker 9: Or land use plan that reflects this idea.
Speaker 0: Today. And Kim, will you just help clarify that when we talk about the clear zones, that's part of this agreement that is land that we own, that's off airport property, that's in Adams County. And so if I could.
Speaker 6: Clarify, I know it is it is on airport, but it is in Adams County.
Speaker 0: Sorry to say that. I turn that around. So when we talk about doing land use planning, it's conceptually what we want to do. But we have to go through Adams County zoning process, if you will, if we don't have the appropriate zoning to do what we might want to do within Adams County boundaries.
Speaker 6: And I think even more importantly, we would want to do that planning with Adams County.
Speaker 0: That makes sense. Okay. So I was just trying to figure out if there was anything more that is being discussed that might come forward as additional amendments? Or do we think this is it? Because as of last or Thursday before last one bill was actually filed, we thought that was that was it with the negotiations and the decision making, that's actually a David Broadwater question.
Speaker 8: I believe, Councilwoman, I am hopeful that this is the final document. There won't be any more tweaks, even clarifications. But I have to say it with this caution. This is has to be approved by six other jurisdictions right on its way to the ballot. And they'll be sitting in their city councils and all of those all five of those municipalities. And the Adams County commissioners, the commissioners in particular, have been very hands on in the negotiation. But there is this third party beneficiary status and the municipalities to one degree or another. And over the next couple of weeks, they'll be going to each of their governing bodies. And so, you know, unknown whether there's going to be any last minute things that will come up as a part of that approval process, as part of the key complexity of the whole deal is there are lots of parties involved, but we've been working diligently and long and hard to reach what we believe is the point of finality here tonight. And that's why confidently I felt like we could bring it forward to you and have you vote on it with a very high degree of confidence that this is it. But as you all know, there's a period of time now between now and the statutory deadline when it will actually go to the polls in both counties. And you can never say never, there's a possibility that something might have to be tweaked or changed. Non substantive, I'm sure, because as Councilman Levitt indicated, we've got a very firm commitment on all sides to the basic deal point, the term sheet that was given to you several weeks ago, the deal will not change if there's going to be any additional tweaks or amendments is going to be absolutely around the periphery. But as we sit here tonight, I don't expect that to occur.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That answers all of my questions, I think. Clearly when my colleagues worked with them, their partner and Mayor Webb subsequently, who work to build out the airport. But Mayor Pena, who worked to put this issue before Denver voters and many of us were out knocking on doors and trying to convince voters both in Denver and Adams County to place this on the ballot, that this was, in fact, going to be the economic engine for this region. And it has, in fact, been. I've seen communities both in Commerce City and Aurora grow tremendously, both commercial and residential. So there have been some benefit to our neighboring communities. We know that many of the people who work at DIA actually live outside of Denver in in many of those neighborhoods. Those communities. And I think this will continue to be an economic engine for Denver and for neighboring jurisdictions. And I am pleased that this, at least for now, limits the development to the 1500 acres. We have restrictions under FAA by which we cannot build within close proximity to the airfield. Those have already been defined in terms of where they're going to be placed. And so I think those assurances to the public are already intact. And so I think moving this forward makes great sense. And I am hopeful that we don't have to continue to see tweaks to this, that the work that's been done and the many things that have been part of the give and take on both sides works out on behalf of all of the parties that have been involved in this process. So I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilwoman Kennish, did you have a comment?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I withdraw my name. I'll pass. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman Farr to have a comment on Council Bill 402.
Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am. I think the issue before us is, should there have been more definitive planning to vote on this tonight? And it is my feeling that that we should not have done more definitive planning. Let me explain a different perspective. I recall when I served in the legislature, this issue was being embraced by Adams County. I mean, as I mentioned before, it was tough swallow for them. And they were giving permission for the airport to take over their land and they wanted it for an airport. The discussion wasn't about economic development on the airport land and having Denver do planning for the airport land. It was about building an airport that in surrounding communities could benefit, but not necessarily right on that airport. That was not to be economic development on the airport land. I would feel it's very disrespectful to our adjacent county to go ahead and say, gee, we've already worked all this out. Now we want your permission. We are going to them saying we want to go forth working with you. And not only is it legally a good idea, because some people, I believe, up in Adams County were feeling we were getting a little bit ahead of ourselves there and that we just better slow down a bit and start involving them so that as we go forth, everybody is in agreement. And I feel very comfortable about this stage of the agreement. I'm supportive of it tonight. And I it is just fine. I would be very uncomfortable if we said this is the deal and here we want you to take it and go sell it to your people. That would be arrogant on our part. This is doing it the right way.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Okay. Counsel McInnis, your name appeared on the screen again.
Speaker 6: It did. And it was only because I could not resist the opportunity before she leaves office to say. I agree with every word that Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 4: Oh, okay. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Just quickly, so, you know, I understand what all of my colleagues are saying, but I think it's respectful for the voters to get to know what what they're voting on. And it's not just an agreement. It will involve a huge land use and transportation plan. And how is it going to be paid for? There's a huge question I have. I appreciate Councilman Leavitt's clarification that there won't be any new tax or tax rate, but that still leaves a lot of other fiscal opportunities open and we don't have any of that information. So I just don't feel comfortable. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Brown.
Speaker 7: Briefly, Madam President. Thank you. This is really a first step. Ordinance. This simply puts it on the ballot in Denver. It will be put on the ballot in Adams County. And again, welcome councilor from Adams County. Good to see you here tonight. There will be a four.
Speaker 1: Month campaign in Adams County as well as.
Speaker 7: Denver County to sell this to the voters. And if the questions that people will come up with are not answered.
Speaker 1: Then perhaps it won't pass. That's why we have campaigns, and this is what this is all about. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Any other comments from members of Council see? None. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Nevett I. Ortega Rob Shepherd. No. Sussman Brooks, i.
Speaker 1: Brown, I.
Speaker 4: But I can eat lemon.
Speaker 3: Lopez All right. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes one ni.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes, one ni. Council Bill 402 has been ordered. Published as amended.
Speaker 4: Final, final consideration. Passed the.
Speaker 3: Test as amended.
Speaker 0: October 11, ays one nay council bill 402 has passed. Correct.
Speaker 3: As amended.
Speaker 0: As amended. Thank you. Okay, let's move on. Councilman Fox, you have called out under bills for final consideration council bill 376. What would you like to do with this?
Speaker 5: Please place it on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Lopez, can you please place Council Bill 376 on the floor for a vote?
|
Bill
|
Refers to the ballot at the November 3, 2015 coordinated election a question concerning the approval of an Amendatory Intergovernmental Agreement with Adams County governing the development and use of certain property at Denver International Airport. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Refers to the ballot at the November 3, 2015 coordinated election a question concerning the approval of an Amendatory Intergovernmental Agreement with Adams County governing the development and use of certain property at Denver International Airport. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 6-9-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06292015_15-0376
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Lopez, can you please place Council Bill 376 on the floor for a vote?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill three 76/3 of 2015 be placed upon final, final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. This is an ordinance that lends money to a developer for relocation costs of a project that's very important along Morrison Road. I approve of the project. I even approve of doing this relocation cost. But I am not willing to do is to lend more money to this specific developer. In a previous deal we had not only a financial deal with the developer, but there were two subsequent amendments to that deal, both of which were to the benefit of the developer, not the taxpayer. And so I am very picky about who I lend money to, and I'm going to say no today.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I do have something to say about this council, bill. Yes? This is Saint Charles Holding Company as the developer of the site. Here's the problem. The problem is this site has been blighted for decades. And in this site, it's not like it's been empty. There have been folks who are living in these conditions that have been substandard and Denver and it's just not right. And we've talked about it for eight years. We looked at opportunities to what can we do to help improve the living conditions here for folks. And there was a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of people who how we had the ability to do it but are afraid to take the risk, afraid to do, afraid to come forward and basically not participate at all. That was true up into the point where Saint Charles Town Company and I think Charles Holding Company here said, you know, we'll do it. Will help will help not only improve the conditions here at this site by acquiring it, but will help trigger the Federal Relocation Act with the city. The city said, we will do this with you. There are folks who are living there who, because of this development, will be able to finally live anywhere else, be able to get benefits for it, relocation costs. And when all these units are built at 60%, am I going to be able to have first refusal, meaning they get the first choice to come back and this is how it should happen. And we can't rely just on VHA or some of the nonprofit folks who are already up. You know, they have their hands full. They don't have enough resources. They're begging for money. They're all fighting over the same pot of money, the same federal pot of money. It should we should actually be working with folks who are in the for profit development side that are willing to do this. And they've done it before on Alameda and Sheridan with those altos down. I mean, it's a very good project, filled a huge need in this city for affordable housing. That's what this does. And now affordable housing in the kind where you know that nobody takes care of and it's forgotten about. And when you complain, you either get kicked out or you just deal with it. Right. But this is the kind of housing these are the kind of units, units that will be maintained that are high quality standard of living, exactly what folks are needing and deserving in this neighborhood. And these are the folks that are willing to do the work. They've been doing the work with the community. It takes partnership from the city. This will help finalize those costs, help those folks find a place to live that way. They're not on the street while this develops or when they come back. I guarantee everybody is going to be standing there wanting to cut that ribbon. So that's what this is all about. And I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Fats? No.
Speaker 3: Lemon Lopez Monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Shepherd Sussman. Hi, Brooks. Hi, Brown. Hi, Sussman.
Speaker 4: There's no opportunity for me to click on I.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'll do it. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I voted. I call to him. He says, When were you able to vote?
Speaker 4: No, there's no.
Speaker 3: I voted for her.
Speaker 0: Okay. And what was the vote?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes, one nay.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one nay. Council Bill 376 has passed all other bills for introduction or ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote. Councilman Lopez, will you please place the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council resolutions 383, 99, 44, 17, four, 18. All series of two 2015 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
|
Bill
|
Grants a $1.7 million loan to St. Charles Town Company for costs related to the relocation of residents of the Shady Nook and Belmont Mobile Home Parks in Council District 3.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06292015_15-0298
|
Speaker 12: Thank you, Madam President. And good evening. Hours of counsel. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. I'm the project manager for this Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment, the 2015 Text Amendment Bundle Number one. I also want to acknowledge that unlike the map amendments, this text amendment endeavors are multi staff projects and I've had a vast team helping me out throughout this whole project. A few of them are in the room tonight. I'd like to acknowledge a barge Tina Axelrod and Jill Jennings Gorelick and a number of others who weren't able to be here tonight. This text amendment is being promulgated by the Department of Community Planning and Development as part of our ongoing effort to keep the zoning code modern, clear up to date and user friendly. So the Department is proposing this amendment. It's the last bundle package we did was 15 months ago, in April of 2014. We periodically review how the code is working and prioritize potential updates in response to feedback that we get largely from customers in the development services experience, reviewing applications and working with folks at the counter and performing inspections in the field. We also receive community and neighborhood feedback throughout the year and we also seek to keep the code up to date as industries change around us. So a lot of the updates that are in this package come in direct response to that feedback that we receive from customers and Denver residents. It's also an extensive public involvement and process that's involved with all of our text amendments. We kicked it off publicly in February of this year with the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation Zoning and Planning Committee briefing. This is an opportunity for the zoning and planning representatives from many of the registered neighborhood organizations around the city to come together as part of and see and talk with staff and dialog about what would go in the amendment before words are even put to paper. So we went out there on February 28th, talked about the issues that we'd heard as potential items and received feedback there, and took that feedback to then develop a summary of the text amendments that we posted in March, which we then delivered to at a briefing of the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee of City Council, as well as the Planning Board and Information Item. Then we took all of the feedback that we received in those briefings to produce a red line draft at the end of March, which was published on March 30th , and also sent out to all registered neighborhood organizations and city council members. Because a lot of folks like to dialog with staff and help and get some better understanding of how a particular amendment would affect them or their project or their home, or is an issue of concern to them. We we offer public office hours when we do text amendments. So we held three sessions in the Wellington Webb building at different times of the day, on different days of the week, to be able to attract folks who have different schedules. And so we did those in the first half of April of 2015 and then and then we create with that feedback, we, we redrafted and put together a draft for the planning board. We provided notice again to all RINO's and City Council members of a planning board. Public hearing produced a new draft for the planning board and held a public hearing at the Planning Board on April 29th. Following that and the feedback we received from Planning Board, we provided notice of a scheduled Neighborhoods and Planning Committee meeting and released a new draft for that committee online on May 7th and then went to the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee meeting again on May the 13th. That was followed by a City Council first reading and publication, an email notice of a city council scheduled public hearing that was originally scheduled for two weeks ago. And then three weeks ago, on June the eighth, City Council amended the bill on the floor, ordered it republished, which we did. It was republished. A notice was again provided to registered neighborhood organizations and city council members of tonight's public hearing, the final public hearing for this June the 29th. And I'll talk about the amendment in a little bit. We also did a number of other outreach components that aren't part of the code, but, you know, help broadcast the word about the text amendment through committees, email newsletters that we invite folks to sign up on, on our website, our Twitter account. And we also held a one on one meetings additionally on request with various parties who are interested in our work. In your packets. There were nine written comments provided at the time of the staff report and another one was received over the weekend and uploaded by City Council staff today providing written comment. And generally a few of the folks are here tonight who provided written comments. I won't speak for them. Their comments ranged from encouraging some of the content that's in the code to encouraging improved street level active use requirements that you'll see in many of our own districts now correcting the many storage parking requirement corrections to how we treat certain kinds of homeless shelters in the code. One comment thanking the city for collaborating on the new marijuana extraction rules. There was a comment regarding the clarifications we're doing on step back encroachments. And then there was comments related to the effective date for pipeline projects, and that's what resulted in the amendment a few weeks ago. So let me speak briefly to the amendment. The amended bill or amended the bill that had been originally filed in order to address projects that are already in the review pipeline. And so what that amendment did, the council passed on June the eighth was to allow any formal site development plan application that we receive this week before the new code goes into effect. By the end of this this work week, that anyone who's in the door with us with a formal site plan application can can make the choice of whether to remain under the current zoning code or if it's to their benefit. And they want to they can have review under the new code that will if they if the code is adopted tonight. And and so that will allow those folks who choose to remain under the current code another six months to go through the review process, get any approvals they might need, and seek that approval by January 4th of 2016, and thus avoid the need for a potential rereview of a component of their plan if they've already been in the door with us. So that's in the bill tonight. The Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Bundle addresses a wide variety of topics the kind of eight groups overall that are addressed in the summary that was included in your packet. They include general provisions. The talk about how we identify zone districts, zone lots and number of uses, zone lot. They address the neighborhood context design standards. So these are our building form standards found throughout the code. They also have to do with general design standards. So site development standards that apply throughout the different neighborhood contexts such as landscaping, parking. We are proposing a few changes relative to parking, both bicycle and vehicle parking. There are some changes in how uses are addressed in the code, which includes use limitations. There are some clarifications to zoning procedures and I'll hit the highlights here in a second. We have changes to the rules of measurement and definitions for how how terms are defined and how things are measured in the code. And then we have some clarifications and corrections that we make throughout the entire code. And I'll just hit some of the highlights that address, specifically the comments that you received and and that kind of are getting the most attention that the most substantive parts of this code. The first is that we're codifying CPD's practice of providing earlier notification to registered neighborhood organizations when a rezoning or a zone map amendment is submitted. So for about a year now, we've been doing that by policy of the executive director, and that will now be in code that when we receive a complete application upon receipt of that application, we will provide notice to the registered neighborhood organizations and city council members. So that's now going to be part of our code. We're updating our bicycle parking standards to add new bicycle parking standards for a few uses that don't have them. Today, most users in the city already have a minimum bicycle parking requirement for new development and additions, and this will increase the number of uses that are subject to those standards. We'll also rightsize a couple of the bicycle parking standards that we got wrong that we've learned from five years of experience with the Denver zoning code. We're also rightsizing the mini store to vehicle parking requirement, which was accidentally, inadvertently increased throughout most of the city when we converted. One way of measuring parking in the former Chapter 59 old zoning code to the new Denver zoning code. So we think we've got that right. Finally, we're proposing changes to street level activation to significantly increase the requirement for street level active uses in our most urban mixed use and main street districts. And this includes new incentives for activation of parking structures, which will add new incentives for folks who want to do the right thing on the street level or on all street facing facades to allow them to provide additional onsite parking if they so choose. We have new rules included in this that are companion to a licensing bill that you passed earlier tonight in zoning for how we deal with marijuana extractions, as we've learned from our experience regulating that. So those are now in this text amendment bundle. And then we have a variety of organization, graphics and corrections that we've made throughout the code. I'm happy to dialog further, more specifically on any topic that you may be interested interested in talking more about, because we've had so many briefings. I haven't teed up all of them here tonight in respect to the future hearings you'll have tonight. But I have a lot more content behind this presentation, if there are any in particular you'd like to dialog further about. So there are three review criteria in the Denver zoning code for a text amendment. The first is that it needs to be consistent with the city's adopted plans and policies. The second is that it needs to further the public health, safety and general welfare. And the third is that it will result in regulations that are uniform. And we reviewed this, the text amendment against all three review criteria and find that it meets it. It directly implements the comprehensive plan 2000 policies relative to ensuring that we have a Denver zoning ordinance that is flexible, that it comments accommodates current and future land use needs, that identifies community issues and targets those concerns with appropriate controls and incentives. So this is directly in line with the city's adopted plans regarding keeping our zoning ordinance up to date. It furthers the public health and safety and general welfare of our residents or land owners or business owners. By providing clarity and predictability in our zoning rules, by removing barriers to planned and desired development, and by overall continuing to implement our adopted plans. And then it will result in regulations that are uniform within each zone district. And because it's making improvements to how we administer the code, it will help improve the city's ability to administer uniformly the code with projects. So again, we find that it meets all three review criteria. As I mentioned, the planning board held a public hearing on April 29th. They took testimony there that unanimously recommended approval of this with three conditions to make some revisions in those earlier drafts, which we had recommended. And all those revisions were made and are included in the draft that is before you tonight. And so with that, we recommend that tonight City Council approve this text amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Dalton. We have three speakers this evening. Signed up to testify on behalf of Council Bill 298. Please come to the front bench right behind the podium when I call your name. The first speaker is Heather Noyes. Great. Second speaker. Hey, Hank. Happy, sappy. And the third speaker is Dave Decker.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Can I should I start? Mm hmm. Hi. My name is Heather Noyes. Greg. I live at 4492 Xavier Street.
Speaker 3: I'm a 24 year old resident.
Speaker 4: Of Berkeley Park. I'm a small business owner on Tennyson Street. My business is studio CPG. We're certified WBEZ by the city and county of Denver. I have two children at Skinner Denver Public Schools. I'm active with our R.A. I serve on the City School Goals Committee. I serve on DPS Goals Committee. And I tell you this because I care passionately about my neighborhood and our city, and I urge you to vote in favor of the text amendment. Tonight, I want to thank Kyle Dalton and a barge who have spent a significant amount of time in our neighborhood looking at development impacts and listening to our neighbors. I want to thank Evelyn Baker, who's walked our streets over there and also spoken with a group of neighbors, and especially Councilwoman Sheppard, who has spent significant time also walking and talking and listening and a heartfelt thanks to you for your efforts. I have two issues or items I'd like to bring to your attention with respect to these proposed changes in the zoning code. I do believe it's a huge step forward. However, I believe that activation of impact zone districts at street level, the 40% activation in the bundle, number one, doesn't go far enough. It's a baby step. This city is investing millions and millions of dollars in streetscape improvements, starting with Tennyson Street, two and a half million dollars. Brighton Boulevard $47 million, East Colfax, West Colfax, many, many other projects too numerous to mention. And I believe that the city should leverage this taxpayer's investment and not allow the automobile to be the dominant use at street level in the max zone. District's 40% activation requirement is great, but that means 60% is left and can be used as parking. And I just think this is really unfortunate and a huge, huge missed opportunity. If we're going to make a change, let's do it right and let's really, you know, put a stamp on this and leverage taxpayers investment. My second my second issue and I have a tape measure, but I'm not going to roll it out. The depth of activated space is limited to 15 feet. I do not believe that's a functional space. Many people have said there's an economic issue associated with how deep you make an activated space. Councilwoman Sheppard and can each have been in my office 15 feet in my office? Gets you two desks, no restroom, no storage, no lobby, nothing in with my retail co-op cohorts and compatriots on Heather Street. Heather, your time. It's just not deep enough. Thank you. That's all I had to say. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thanks for coming. Our next speaker is Hank Saifi. If I didn't pronounce it right.
Speaker 1: Hank, say.
Speaker 8: As extreme as I'm at 250 Jersey Street in Denver.
Speaker 1: And I'm here to support the text amendments that are happening, especially concerning the self-storage parking that we've developed here. And I can answer any questions, but I just support what they've done. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our final speaker is Dave Decker.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Dave Decker.
Speaker 1: I am at 4258 Tennyson Street in Denver. I'm here on behalf of.
Speaker 10: Berkeley, Regis, United Neighbors. It's the R.A. up on that represents Tennyson Street. We've been working on this issue.
Speaker 1: For well over a year. We had a public meeting last February. We had well over 100 people and.
Speaker 10: About 800 written comments, many of which discussed new development, residential and commercial. And what what the kind of the take away from it is. There are some really great things about Tennyson.
Speaker 1: Street, but it could be said about many commercial streets in Denver. They're walkable, they're friendly, they're active. And what we've found with some of the new construction that it's happening is they're turning their backs to the street. They're using it as parking. They're putting the windows on the sides and the front doors and the sides of the buildings, but that doesn't activate the street. So what we have this great attribute of our commercial streets and Denver and that they're friendly and they're walkable. But in the new construction, people are concerned that we were losing that. So what we did is we we and Heather mentioned this earlier. We we had a meeting with Councilwoman Shepherd and she.
Speaker 10: Engaged the help of the planning office.
Speaker 1: Planner level and Baker. And also we've gotten help from Karl Dalton and a barge. They've done a wonderful, wonderful job educating the R.A. about what can be done. They let us know about this process and we're in full support of it. We our board took a vote. It passed 8 to 1 to support this tax amendment, mainly to adding the design standards, to revising the parking requirements, and to require those active, active street users. Again, like Heather said, we strongly support the passage of.
Speaker 10: This amendment and I do appreciate the time.
Speaker 1: I apologize for my appearance. But getting around on crutches in about I'm a little bit more concerned about comfort right now.
Speaker 10: But and if you have any questions, be free to answer them.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I would like to ask Colonel Dalton to come back to the microphone, please. Got a couple of questions for you. In my perusing of the document. I didn't see anything that deals with the. The whether there was discussion about. Continuing to do the general development plans, the way they're being done now in in a wounded clarification on whether or not there's a size of a project that requires a general development plan. So can you can you speak to that?
Speaker 12: Sure. Yeah. So this text the moment does not propose any changes to the current general development plan rules. As I mentioned, you know, the process started many months ago. And at that time, we are still engaged in a task force with many community members and developers and staff. And so we didn't want to preempt the outcome of that process with amendments in this text amendment bundle. So there is nothing in this text amendment bundle to change the world or develop general development plans. I think we'll need to revisit that now that most of the task force work is completed in the future bundle. But again, because this started so long ago and that was going on, we didn't want to preempt that work.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then for the parking, I saw that you were adding or the department has added language that makes it more convenient and easier to have bike parking. And I heard the speaker loud and clear, Heather, when you were talking about the concern about too much parking. But I guess I'm looking at some of the larger developments where some of these commercial corridors are not on a transportation line. Were there any changes to parking criteria or that was pretty much left intact as well.
Speaker 12: For bicycle parking, specifically.
Speaker 4: For vehicle.
Speaker 0: Not bicycle parking for for cars, for large developments that go into these commercial corridors.
Speaker 12: Yeah. So there are no changes proposed to the minimum vehicle parking ratio, you know, onsite vehicle parking ratios. And as part of this bundle, other than the reduction in the vehicle parking requirement for many storage facilities, which, you know, are sometimes located on those commercial corridors and sometimes not. But that's the only change to vehicle parking ratios in the code. We're also clarifying how you can take the existing reductions that are in the code.
Speaker 4: In.
Speaker 12: Alternatives, so you know about making sure folks don't double count reductions or clarifying that. But but there aren't substantive changes to vehicle parking.
Speaker 0: Madam Chair, I have two more questions. May I continue? The next one is about zero escaping under the landscaping. I didn't see that we're encouraging more zero escaping as we were experiencing an unusual year this year because of the kind of rain we had. But, you know, in the past few years, we have had some serious watering restrictions. And so I want to know how that particular issue was dealt with or was it not at all?
Speaker 12: Sure. Yeah. It's a great question. That was not part of the scope of this text amendment. So we did not begin a community conversation about adding zero escaping requirements in the code.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then my last question is about whether or not there was anything that came up about allowable locations for food trucks. I know there was supposed to be a task force started to deal with this issue, and that hasn't happened. But I don't know if that was something that came up during this process.
Speaker 12: So no. Again, thanks for the question. There are no changes proposed in this text amendment relative to food trucks in particular, I think. You know, when we saw the the resurgence of them a few years ago, we got together with some of the other departments and created a food truck guide to help folks navigate the city's current regulations better. And and that really helped folks know where they needed to go and when what the rules are. So there are no changes proposed as part of this text amount to the current rules.
Speaker 0: Well, I'm sorry, I do have one last one. And this is on the national western campus when I had a briefing from the staff person around the language changes or the zoning creating the new campus zoning for the National Western Center. One of the things that was talked about was allowing a helipad and I didn't see and hear if that was still in the language. Can you help me determine if that is still an allowable use or is it a conditional use or is it not being allowed after all?
Speaker 12: Sure. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question, that the council will take up the matter of National Western Center zoning next week. That's a separate text amendment, so there are separate red lines for it. And I'm not the project manager on that case. I'm not familiar with that issue.
Speaker 0: Okay. I was just curious because I saw part of that language included in here. This is probably just some of the base language right in it because it's got all the red lines as part of what we received in the packet.
Speaker 12: Oh okay. For the the bundle. Yeah. No that should not be being adopted as part of tonight's. That's part of next week's agenda.
Speaker 0: Okay. So let me ask the city attorney then, have you seen this? So we've got a whole section in here called Campus National Western Center as part of the bundle. And so I'm just trying to understand, if we're not if we're dealing with the actual adoption of that zoning next week, should it be part of this language here tonight?
Speaker 4: No, I'm kind of going to look to Kyle because, again, Lori Strand, city attorney's office, the red line for the bundle should not include red lines establishing the new National Western Center. That's separate. That'll be a separate text amendment. So perhaps the red line that was provided to you was incorrect or.
Speaker 0: I'm happy to provide you what I received. I printed this out.
Speaker 4: But what you're proving tonight is and that does not include the language for the north ethnic national western. So that's when you get political.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Ortega, can we move on or what is it that you make up? I was just trying to get clarification. Would you like me to. We're, in fact, including. Or are we just adopting that? National Western Center is a category we're creating. I mean, there's some there there.
Speaker 4: So again, we will speak to what was provided. But tonight before you is not that. So if that text is shown on the red line and should not be. That's going to be considered next week as a separate text amendment. But Kyle can explain perhaps what was provided.
Speaker 12: Sure. Yeah. I don't have a copy of what you provide these things, but the copy of the red line draft that I have does not include that. And regardless, what the council is adopting tonight is what was filed with the ordinance. And what was filed with the ordinance is a clean version. In that clean version, I can assert does not have anything related to National Western Center in it. So if there is a either an error in something staff produced that shows the red line, which is a courtesy to show what's happening but is not what is filed . My mistake, but is not in the copy of the red line that I have in front of me.
Speaker 4: And, and on the front page of what you provided actually says this is the national western centered public review draft, not the bundle. So this is actually for the National Western think, which is next week at the rural one. So it's a different packet that you should have for cattle and it's much thicker than this. You'll know because that's about 700 pages.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So, Kyle, if you could stay up here. So I was hoping.
Speaker 0: I just want to jump in really quickly. We heard from some audience members that they're not able to hear council comments. So I should have said that before the public hearing.
Speaker 4: So you wouldn't.
Speaker 0: Mind speaking closer to the microphone.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So, Mr. Dalton, just to help put that tonight's conversation in a little bit better context, I was hoping you could expound a little bit on what the street level activation changes actually were, because I think it's imperative in terms of two of the speaker's comments this evening.
Speaker 12: Sure. Thanks. So so here's here's the street level active use. What we're proposing in the text amendment, I'll remind the Council that in the current code we have building form requirements that relate to mixed use and main street districts. So where are we already have requirements relative to transparency, how many windows are required and the size and and the location of those. How much of the building is located near the street? In our mixed use of Main Street districts, that surface parking isn't allowed between the building and street in many of those locations. So what this is specifically speaking to is the use that's happening inside that building for certain widths and depths. So what we have currently in the code today without this amendment is we address use only in Main Street and we don't address it at all in mixed use. So in our Main Street districts today, we have what I've got on the screen now that the ground story within the required build to portion must have at least one primary use other than parking of vehicles. That's the language in the code today. It was in the original Main Street when it was adopted in the mid 2000s. There's no dimensions on it. There's nothing other than no parking. So, you know, what we found is folks can provide a postage stamp sized lobby and meet that requirement and then move on and still have parking in the rest of Main Street and then again in mixed use or nothing today. So that's the current state of affairs. What's proposed in the bundle is to change that for some of our districts. So we'll be adding new use requirements that apply to the portion of the building frontage, meaning the bill too. So that's kind of the width question. And so we'll do that in the main street in our C-Max Urban Center mixed use zone districts that so 100% of the part of the building that's meeting the build to requirement in those districts needs to have what we're calling a street level active use. I'll explain that in a second. In the, um ex in the TMX zone districts, we're proposing a 40% frontage requirement and then in all the others we're still not changing the world. So in the urban edge, in the suburban, in the commercial corridor zone districts, no change. And then as Heather alluded to, you know, they just mentioned the frontage percentages, which is essentially the width. There would be a minimum, a depth of 15 feet. So, you know, that's the minimum that would be required in order to meet the new code requirement. And within that 15 feet and the percentage you couldn't do parking, mini storage, wholesale storage or trade or accessory auto related uses. So you know what the department's proposed. I would agree with the speakers that it's moving the ball forward significantly. And these districts that today have none or almost no requirement, while at the same time recognizing that through the bundle, we're taking a citywide approach. We're not taking a street by street, block by block approach to know, you know, where in some places and. Some districts, you know, there may be a more appropriate, more stringent requirement that's appropriate. And and so, you know, my colleague, a barge is already working with the Berkeley neighborhood, in particular to work on an overlay district, perhaps for their neighborhood that would increase the requirements there based on their unique needs. But on a citywide basis, when we studied where all of those euro zone districts are, where all the TMX, where all the C-Max or all the main street are, we felt that this was the right move to move the ball forward with without unduly burdening accidentally projects throughout the whole city.
Speaker 4: Okay. I thank you. And then I have one more question for Miss Gregg. Yeah. You can come.
Speaker 2: Up here with.
Speaker 4: So, Miss Gregg, I know you were a little bit rushed in your comments, and so I'm not sure you got to say everything that you wanted to say, but I wanted to make sure that you are in support of the changes tonight, because I know you said a couple of them didn't go far enough. So I'm not sure if I heard you say that you owe complete support. Yes, that's what I just think. You clarify. I think you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments by members of council or questions on the public hearing for council? Bill 298 is closed. Comments by Members of Council Councilman Sesame. Okay. Councilman Shepherd.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So I just wanted to say that I am in support of this text amendment bundle tonight, and I want to I want to talk a lot about the process, because that's as important of the story of what we're actually doing here tonight. And I know that Ms.. Greg alluded to this, but the Berkeley Regis neighborhood organization has had a profound impact on what these text amendments are included in the bundle, specifically as relates to the street level activation piece of this bundle. This is how the iterative process of the code is supposed to work. So in May of last year, the neighborhood organization held an open session for neighbors from the whole community to come in. And it didn't have to have, you know, knowledge in the code. You just had to be able to articulate what it was that you liked and what's working in the new code and what isn't. And there was a lot of this is an area that has, under the new code revision and with the rebound in the market, has experienced tremendous growth and change just in the last 2 to 3 years. And quite frankly, a lot of the residents are really reeling from those impacts in a number of ways. But I will really hand it to the neighborhood for being able to be very articulate about, you know, what is working and what isn't working and why and why they'd like to see. And so what came out of that was a very nicely spelled out list of of thoughts and possible recommendations that the neighborhood neighborhood would like to have seen in the code. And so working through my office, we were able to have a meeting with officials from Community Planning and Development and literally do a walkthrough with the neighborhood , which I think took like two or 3 hours, like not just the commercial street, but the neighborhood. And there were several recommendations that came forward. Community planning and development on its own accord acted to already implement some of those suggestions, which happened administratively actually last year. This particular one in relation to street activation actually, you know, was determined as a need to be changed in the code and that is why it's coming forward in this bundle of text amendments. But and I know the process took longer, much longer than the neighborhood had wanted. I mean, I think that meeting, if I'm not mistaken, with community planning and development, was in probably about August of last year. And here it is July, and we're finally passing the code. And I know it's frustrating for folks that things don't change as quickly as as folks would like, but this is how the process works. And I want people to understand that. I mean, I know there's a lot of frustration out there because when the code revision was passed in 2010, nobody could really envision what it would look like as it played out. And certainly the way the market has rebounded so quickly and so much has redeveloped in a very short period of time and especially the pressure has been very great on certain neighborhoods. And I know a lot of people are, you know, upset and angry and wringing hands. But there are practical solutions, you know, and it starts at that neighborhood level about collecting that data and that input, you know, and then reaching out to council members or community planning and other staff to try to start figuring out how to make those changes in a way that is meaningful and works. And this is very much a testament to that. And, you know, I want folks to understand that, you know, the entire city team is open to this and this is how the process works. So, you know, please consider this. You know, this is really, in my opinion, at least this piece of it is really, you know, kind of a hats off to the process working well. And I just want other individuals and neighbors and neighborhood organizations to take, you know, to receive assurance that this is how we can affect change and that the code is a living document, breathing document, and that it can change and and we can make it work better. We really can. And so I just you know, this is this neighborhood organization. I mean, it's all volunteers, as all of them are. But and this particular neighborhood organization has a tremendous amount of expertize among the board in terms of design and development planning. And so was able to have a really informed discussion with city staff about how to make this happen. And so I just really want to encourage folks, you know, to, you know, to get beyond hand-wringing and to get to that constructive level because we can make this work better. So I'm definitely in support. And once again, want to thank Berkeley Regents for taking the initiative and helping to make this happen. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 298.
Speaker 3: Shepherd Susman, Brooks Brown.
Speaker 8: II.
Speaker 4: But I can eat lemon.
Speaker 3: I Lopez. I never. I. Ortega.
Speaker 4: I rub i.
Speaker 3: Madam President, i.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Zero nays. Council Bill 298 has passed. Council Bill 345 and 346 approve the zoning map amendments. The Council is required by law to conduct public hearings on zoning map amendments. The council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. Speakers should begin their comments by telling the council their names, cities of residence, and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their home addresses. Councilman Lopez, will you please? Please. Council Bill 345 on the floor.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 345 series of 2015 be placed upon final consideration to pass.
Speaker 0: Okay. I need a second from a member of council. It's been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 345 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. I am trying to get a PowerPoint open here, so give me a second.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance to amend Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to the Denver Zoning Code and to amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the 2015 Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Bundle #1 comprised of multiple clarifying changes to the text of the Denver Zoning Code (DZC). IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06292015_15-0345
|
Speaker 0: Okay. I need a second from a member of council. It's been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 345 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. I am trying to get a PowerPoint open here, so give me a second.
Speaker 10: Here we are.
Speaker 0: So this is a map amendment for a property located at approximately 99 Quebec Street from oh one to C-Max five with waivers. The property is located in Southeast Denver in Council District five, in the Lowry Field statistical neighborhood. This is an illustration and illustrative plan of the Buckley Annex plan. The purple bubble that you see is the area that we're talking about. You may be familiar with Buckley Annex, but I have to remind you every time that this was a former Air Force facility home to the Air Reserve Personnel Center and Defense Finance and Accounting Services with about 3000 employees. In 1993, the Lowry Reuse Plan was created and adopted by the city as city policy. This Air Force facilities were in that plan were shown to continue. In 2000, Denver adopted our comprehensive plan and adopted the Lowry Reuse Plan as a supplement to our plan. And again, the Air Force facilities were shown to continue. Blueprint Denver was adopted by the city in 2002, and then in 2005, the Air Force announced they were closing their facilities. So the Buckley Annex redevelopment plan was completed by the Lowry Redevelopment Authority, and it did provide a land use and transportation framework for redeveloping the annex property . And in 2011, the property was vacated by the Air Force. And 2012, the Air Force completed transfer of the property to the Lowry Redevelopment Authority in 2013. The city adopted a general development plan and a minor amendment to that plan. So the map on your screen is a location of the property. It is at the corner of First Avenue and Quebec Street. Quebec forms the eastern boundary. The western boundary of Buckley Annex is Monaco Street. The southern boundary is roughly Bayard Avenue. Property itself is about 18 acres. It is vacant except for two existing structures, a small maintenance structure of two stories and a two storey office building that houses the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. Currently on the property, utilities are under construction for the redevelopment. Property owner is Lowry Redevelopment Authority. Their proposal is to redevelop into a mixed use development for this property. They are requesting a rezoning from oh 1 to 5 with waivers. This is part of a 70 acre site. To date, about 53% of the site has been resolved. Just a little bit about the current zoning. It is a one this is a former Chapter 59 zone district carried forward as it was in the old code. There is no height limit there except if you were within 175 feet of a protected zone district, in which case the height limit is 75 feet. The allowed uses, the only residential uses allowed are residential care and shelter for the homeless. Civic and public uses are allowed such as elementary schools, libraries, correctional institutions. The only commercial uses allowed are outdoor arts, recreation and entertainment and surface and garage parking and industrial uses are allowed such as telecommunications, oil and gas production and wholesale trade and storage. Light just a little bit about the existing zoning. The gray you see on your screen is former Chapter 59. So the majority of the zoning surrounding our site subject property tonight is Archway with waivers. Archway was a multi-unit zoned district that had a minimum lot. Area of 2000 square feet for each zoned. Each sorry. Each dwelling unit. But if you did it planned building group site plan, you were allowed to go down to 1500 square feet for each dwelling unit and much of Lowry was developed in planned building groups. That's why I mention it. As you see in this slide, the blue areas are the plan building groups. So the urban center mixed use five storeys urban center context is a multi-unit residential zone district with mixed use commercial land uses. Multi-unit residential is located primarily on collectors and arterial streets. Commercial is located on main streets and mixed use arterials. First Avenue in Blueprint Denver's terms is a residential collector and Quebec is a residential arterial. And again, the well, we'll hear hear more about it. But the GDP does support a mixture of uses for this portion of Berkeley annex. It is considered a community wide gathering space and a location for a new park. Parkside Retail multifamily single family uses are envisioned and the Scenic Zone District CRM X5 with its broad land use allowance and building form standards, create that pedestrian friendly place that we're looking for in town center. So again, the proposed zone district urban center and neighborhood context mixed use with a five storey maximum height. And waivers. The waivers reduce the height along First Avenue. And I probably should have gone. Well, I didn't get there yet.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: I'm trying to find where I inserted some. No. I'm sorry. I'm going the wrong way. I want to show you the area where the three stories proposed, which I think is back under the proposal. And I should have pointed that out before. So bear with me there. So you see two blue areas. Those are the areas where the waivers would apply to the edges of the property that we're proposing to rezone. And now let me explain what those are. So in those areas on First Avenue in Quebec, the zoning would waive down the heights to 45 feet and three stories within 30 feet of the property edge. And then the other waiver on proposed with this rezoning is to reduce the maximum height of the remainder of the area from 70 feet to 65 feet and keep the five storey limit. And just for information, the C-Max five does have a 70% build to for nonresidential structures within 0 to 10 feet of the property. For residential structures, only that 70% build two is within 0 to 15 feet on primary street phase and requiring primary street facing entrances and some transparency requirements as well. So we've kind of got dry throat. Which. It happens a lot. We've kind of already talked about the existing zoning. It is a mixture of that multi-unit ah to ar1 to the south B three with waivers in the, in the Lowry Town Center and then some single unit to the northeast and south of the property. And then of course, Chris Moore Park to the west. The majority of the area is vacant. As I said before, there are two small buildings on the property, a maintenance building and a two storey office building and utilities and roads under construction. So a little bit of the surrounding uses are shown on this side. The red is an office use four storey office use. The sort of orange is multi-unit, mid-rise, multi-unit, and then a lower density, low rise multi-unit is sort of the lighter orange. And then the yellow, of course, is single family land uses. And this gives you a little bit of an idea of the flavor of the surrounding land uses. The upper right is the four storey office building directly across Quebec Street. The Red Arrow shows the existing two storey office building at first in Quebec. The lower right is across Quebec, single family across Quebec. The lower left is the area that is proposed south. While not proposed, it's been approved single family zoning approved on the southern edge of Barclay Annex and then just shot in the middle. On the left is some of the roads already being built in the upper left, some of the houses already being built at near first in Quebec. So this proposal was sent to city agencies for their review, and these are the comments provided by them on approval from our asset management. Our Surveyor. No comments from Parks and Recreation. No comments from Project Coordination. Transportation reviewed and had. No comments. And wastewater approved the rezoning. So this is the public notice that we sent out for this proposal. March 16th was the first notice of a complete application sent to registered neighborhood organizations. You see the list here on the slide Denver Neighborhood Association in her neighborhood cooperation. Lowry Community Master Association. Lowry United Neighbors, Mayfair Park Neighborhood Association and Mayfair Residents Condominium Association. And then 15 days prior to the May 6th Planning Board hearing, there was a sign posted on the property and electronic notice sent to all of the affected RINO's. There was a public hearing at that May 6th meeting and planning board did recommend unanimously that City Council approve this rezoning. NAP Committee meeting was held May 20th. Ten days prior to that meeting was electronic notice to registered neighborhood organizations as well. And then for this city council, a public hearing notice was sent out on June 5th and signs were posted on the property to these same groups. So at the bottom of the slide, you see the number of letters that we've received or individual responses. They were 331 116 in favor of the proposed rezoning and 215 opposed. You know well the criteria for rezoning. Consistency with adopted plans. Uniformity of district regulations. Furthering public health. Safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances. And consistency with neighborhood context and zone. District purpose and intent. Well, here's telling you again that planning board unanimously recommended approval. So the pertinent plans for this proposal are Denver Plan 2000, the Lowery Reuse Plan Blueprint, Denver and the Buckley Annex General Development Plan. So comp plan 2000 in the in the Environmental Sustainability Chapter tells us to promote the development of sustainable communities and centers of activity where shopping, jobs, recreation and schools are accessible by multiple forms of transportation. The Land Use Chapter tells us to encourage quality infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and offers opportunities for increased density and more amenities. That Denver Legacy's chapter tells us to identify areas in which increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated. And the neighborhood chapters tell us to modify land use regulations to ensure flexibility to accommodate changing demographics and lifestyles, and to encourage a diverse mix of housing types, affordable units, essential services, recreation, business and employment. Home based business schools, transportation and open space networks. Blueprint Denver Adopted in 2002 The land use concept in Blueprint Denver is employment, and again, this was designated prior to the Air Force closing their offices. And the area is an area of change. These are the areas that Blueprint says are large vacant development sites which offer the potential to create new neighborhoods that embody the best characteristics of Denver's traditional residential neighborhoods. And I guess I want to emphasize that this is a key concept of blueprint. Denver Directing our growth to areas of change and protecting are areas of stability where we want to have some reinvestment but protect the character of those areas. And so the Street Classification and blueprint Denver for First Avenue is residential collector, which provide a balance between mobility and land access and then residential arterial for Quebec Street. First Avenue is 60 feet wide. Quebec Street 110 feet wide. Just like you'd like to know that Lowry reuse plan. As I stated earlier, they didn't anticipate the change in use of the property in 1993 when the plan was written. So in 2005, when the Air Force announced they'd be closing the plan, didn't address that. So there is little guidance from the Lowry reuse plan for this rezoning. This is the Buckley Annex General Development Plan. Again, the area we're talking about is is highlighted in yellow. The orange bubble is the area we're talking about rezoning. This area is considered the community park mixed use center sub area in the general development plan. And the intent of that area is a community wide gathering place that's defined by a significant community park and plaza, new opportunities for park side, retail and multifamily and single family residence residences that look on to the parking plaza. New parking for the Fleshman Library to create a synergy between the library and the new Mixed Use Center and a mixture of land uses including residential, retail, office and civic with ground floor uses and urban design. Character of build to's, pedestrian entrances on Lowry Boulevard and Pontiac Street ground ground for active users, parking located on the side and rear of buildings and buildings oriented to the park. So the Neighborhood Context Urban Center is generally characterized by that multi-unit, residential and mixed use commercial that we've been talking about, as well as multi-unit residential uses that are located along collectors and arterials, as we have been talking about with First Avenue and Quebec Street. There is a general grid, street pattern, detached sidewalks and usually alleys. Buildings are typically consistently oriented and not haphazardly oriented to the street and in different distances. So a consistent build to and there is a high level of pedestrian and bicycle use in these areas. So with these characteristics, staff does believe that the mix five conforms to these mixture of uses, the enhanced build to the pedestrian scaled development that the zone district generally espouses, and specifically this IMX five zone district with its location on the primarily collector and arterial streets with a scale of 1 to 5 stories. So staff believes that this is that city five is consistent. So we do find that the proposed CM x five is consistent with Blueprint Denver Plan 2000, the Buckley Annex General Development Plan, and that the C IMX five will be a uniform zone district and will be administered uniformly except for the waivers on first and third I mean first in Quebec, and that by implementing our plans we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. So this criteria is also met. Justifying circumstance for this rezoning is changed conditions. The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage the redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area. KPD finds this criteria has been met because of the changing condition in this case the closure of the Air Force facilities in 2011. The subsequent sale of the property to Library Redevelopment Authority for redevelopment. We did already talk about consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. So with that, self recommends approval of this rezoning. Thank you, Ms.. Lucero. We have 32 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So let us begin by calling the first eight speakers up. The first one is Monti Force, John Putnam, Joyce Foster, Cindy Van Size, Hillary Patel, George Swan Milroy, Roy Alexander and Katie McCrimmon. If you can all come up to the first bench, first row right behind the podium. We can begin our public hearing. Let me just.
Speaker 8: I have 6.
Speaker 0: Minutes. Yes, you do.
Speaker 8: Okay. Hmm. Good evening. Members of council. I'm Monte Force. I'm the executive director of the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. My address is 7290 East First Avenue. The staff report was very thorough, but I'd like to spend just a little time amplifying what Theresa has said, along with giving you some additional context for the zoning before you this evening . I believe this was passed out. Everybody have this little flipbook here. I'm going to be referring to that as I go along to help illustrate some of my comments and others that are going to follow me all the way back in 1991. Civic and city leaders set forth the vision for the closing Lowry Air Force Base that it would be an urban, mixed use community with a wide range of housing near parks, schools, jobs and retail services, and that people could live, learn, work and play without having to drive everywhere. Today, some 35,000 people enjoy that lifestyle, and Lowery has been recognized both locally and nationally as a model for smart growth. We are all aware of community concerns about growth around this city. And in response, I'd like to say that at Lowery, we've been practicing smart growth for the last 24 years. And to continue to do so, we've been at this for a little while. In fact, this is the 61st time we have been to City Council for a zoning action to enable the vision for Lowery. Flipping a page too. You can see the entire 866 acre Lowry redevelopment and Boulevard one is 70 acres of that shown in the orange box. At this point, about 98% of Lowry is developed or underway. And this mixed use parcel that we're discussing today within the boulevard, one area at 18 acres represents a mere 1% of all of Lowry. Flipping a page three. Lowry is noted as an area of change, and more specifically, so is Boulevard one. Blueprint Denver urges development of compact and mixed use neighborhoods and Boulevard one is just that the right kind of development in the right place and at the right time. I flip to page six and you'll see an illustrative that depicts a great opportunity for mixed use redevelopment in Denver on the 70 acre parcel in total will have no more than 800 residential units. Approximately 120 of those would be single family detached, 230 row homes and up to 200 are up to 450 apartments. In addition, 12% of that housing mix is affordably priced for sale, and rental homes will have no more than 200,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. It include 13 acres of parks or 19% of the site. On page seven, we show in green the proposed CM five zoning, an 18 acre site located on the east side of Boulevard One along Quebec and across the street from the Lowry Town Center. This area is the heart of the community. Where people will live, shop, eat and socialize is integral to the mixed use concept of Boulevard One. Also note that a little over 50% of Boulevard one has already been zoned shown in blue with single family homes and row homes. Now flipping all the way back to page 12. I'd like to summarize it in a word. I'd like to emphasize that Boulevard one is the same. Boulevard. One planning is consistent with the rest of Lowry and the goals of the city. It has the same density, overall density of 11 units to the acre, the same as the Lowry Town Center District. The same ratio of for sale homes to apartments at 45 and 55%, respectively. For the last several years, we have publicly represented and adopted by board resolution that there would be a maximum of 800 residential units on this site in the 200,000 square feet of commercial space. This has been reflected in the redevelopment plan, the general development plan. The traffic studies, our planning, our engineering, and the improvements on the ground today. The same zoning in some context be three across the street, which is essentially a mixed use zoned direct district under the previous code. Along with the CMCs eight zone district that is nearby. We have the same parking ratios. The design guidelines manage our parking according to ratios in the previous zoning code. We have the same traffic volume. That is, the traffic studies that were approved by the city have estimated 9500 daily traffic trips for the Boulevard one development. That's the same volume of generated by the former office use on the site. These same traffic studies concluded that the existing street network, along with proposed streets, can accommodate those proposed trips. The same building heights a maximum of 65 feet in a mixed use area and limited on the edges to 45 feet. And finally, it's the same vision by the same developer for an urban mixed use community where people can live, learn, work and play. Thank you for your consideration. I welcome any questions you may have for me later, and I ask for your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Force. Our next speaker is John Putnam. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 10: Good evening. And thank you, Madam President and city council. My name is John Putnam. I'm an attorney at law firm of Catholic Church, and Rockwell and I represent the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. The Boulevard one rezoning request that you see in front of you tonight is a straightforward application of the MAP Amendment requirements for the City of Denver . Section 12 .4. 10.7 of the zoning code authorizes city council to approve a map amendment when consistent with the cities adopted. Plans are necessary to provide land for community need not anticipated at the time the city's plan. The proposed CMCs five map amendment with waivers for the mixed use component of Boulevard One meets all of these criteria , as discussed in detail in the application by Marti and by Teresa. The CM five zoning is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The 22 blueprint, Denver and the 2013 General Development Plan for the Boulevard one. Indeed, Lowry is one of the prototypical areas of change towards which the city has planned to direct mixed use infill development like the application in front of you tonight. The proposed MAP Amendment would implement 18 separate strategies in the comprehensive plan and 13 of the implementation measures in Blueprint Denver. These include development of mixed use, pedestrian friendly stretch of developed and pedestrian safe development measures in area of change. In fact, it's telling that the plan and blueprint Denver specifically call for mixed use development in Lowry as an area of change. Mentioning Lowry 38 times in the comprehensive plan and 34 times in Blueprint Denver probably exceeding any other area of town. Aside from Stapleton, the city approved the Buckley Annex GDP in 2013 as recommended by the planning board at that time. Now Section 12 .4. 12.15 of the zoning code provides a quote. City Council may approve a Map amendment rezoning application for property located with an approved GDP area, taking into consideration the approved GDP. Thus, the GDP section of the code explicitly addresses the question of whether a GDP is an adopted plan for purposes of rezoning. Council has already answered yes through the code, and any other reading would render this language of the code that the City Council's passed meaningless. The proposed CMCs five zoning follows the height, setback, design and other elements of the GDP, and the zoning code contemplates that the forms would be broadly distributed throughout the city. The proposed rezoning is also consistent with the revision of the Library Reuse Plan to provide the sort of mixed use development that Lowry has become. It's true that the 1993 reuse plan did assume that the Federal Defense Finance and Accounting Services Facility would remain on the Buckley Annex site. But the federal government has closed that site, and the assumption that the DOD would remain is not a planning direction, is not in the control of the city, and has no bearing on your decision today. Indeed, the city's already approved rezoning of four residential parcels at Boulevard, one covering the majority of the site. The current application provides the employment and mixed use element of the Buckley GDP. As Theresa and Monty have mentioned, the proposed MAP amendment also meets the code requirement that it further public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Cities Planning has already identified the city's need for employment and housing in mixed use settings in areas of change, such as Lowry. The proposed rezoning would integrate more parks, space, more pedestrian, a bicycle access and break up the old D fast super block. Further, the proposed rezoning would provide compatible heights, exceed parking requirements in the city code in most cases, and integrate with the transit roadway and pedestrian connections in the area. Both the Buckley Annex and the CMCs form in the zoning code were designed to enhance pedestrian safety and activity, especially as compared to card dominated suburban forms, including the current path along Quebec Avenue. The traffic studies prepared for the GDP showed that the roadways and intersections can handle any additional traffic, and the height limits are below what can currently be built with the O1 zoning and structures like the hangars and nearby apartments in Legacy. Lowry. Indeed, as Marty mentioned, councils already approve same x five and CMCs eight Rezonings and Legacy Lowry. The application also thoroughly explains why the requested waivers provide an extra transition from neighboring uses reducing rate from 70 to 45 feet in these areas. Finally, the proposed MAP amendment has been subject to all required notice requirements and an exhaustive public engagement process going back years. There have been over 60 meetings and many changes to the proposed Boulevard one plan and rezoning applications to address community comments and concerns. For that reason, and consistent with the thorough analysis that was conducted by the Planning Board, resulting in a unanimous proposal that you approve this application, we ask that you follow that lead and approve the application tonight. Thank you for your thorough consideration this evening, and please let us know if you have any questions at the end of the public comment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Putnam. Our next speaker is Joyce Foster, followed by Cindi Van Sise.
Speaker 4: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. The City Council.
Speaker 0: Madam President. All groups. All of you.
Speaker 4: I had to come here tonight. I had to.
Speaker 0: Share with.
Speaker 4: You my support for this incredible project. Because I sat where you're sitting 24, 20 years ago, 1993 to 2003, when we would sit here to the middle of the night rezoning it. I sat with Councilmember Ortega, Councilmember Brown.
Speaker 5: I sat with with.
Speaker 4: Many of you who.
Speaker 0: Worked for I sat with Councilmember Robb with.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Laman, because you and I sat with with Councilmember Sussman, who was actually working on the project. And we were here and we were listening and we had many, many people from the community who were petrified. And we were we were unsure of what to do, but they were petrified. They were.
Speaker 0: Fearful.
Speaker 4: All of these homeless people that were going to occupy. LOWRY Well, fear not. As soon as my term ended in 2003, we moved. My husband and I moved to Lowery. My son David and his wife Ali were already there. And shortly after we moved there, my son Danny, his wife.
Speaker 11: Becky.
Speaker 4: Moved there. And then a couple of years ago, my daughter Debbie moved there. A few years ago she moved there. So we are actually all in walking distance. There's about a mile and a half that separates our home. So I am walking distance to all six of my grandchildren and I think that's pretty, pretty wonderful. People are concerned now about density. We moved to Lowry because of density. I walk to my doctor's appointments. I walk to my physical therapy appointments. I can walk to the gym. Sometimes when I go, I walk to the restaurants. We have a love, a ton of wonderful restaurants, and I look forward to many more restaurants. It is the community that we determined would be wonderful. 20 years ago. It is the economic engine. DIA is one economic engine. Lowrey is an economic engine and Stapleton is an economic engine. Whatever we did, we did right. And we did with trepidation and we did with common sense and a thoughtfulness. When I was on City Council, I was assigned to the Dr. COG board and I sat there for eight years and we wanted transit and we built transit. We're never going to have transit in Lowry unless we have density. So if the more density we have, the sooner perhaps we can start applying for the dollars for transit. It's a walk. It's a walkable community. It's a bikeable community. And many of my friends, some are retired, but some are not. They actually walk to their offices and I tease them. I said, how's the traffic walking to your office today? You know, and it's it's it's marvelous. It's just simply marvelous.
Speaker 0: You're going to, I'm sure, hear horror stories about, you know, what's going to happen.
Speaker 4: You know, there's going to be too many people and everything. To me, it's a blessing.
Speaker 0: It's an absolute blessing.
Speaker 4: We have affordable units in Lowry like we had promised the community, like we had promised the federal government. We don't know who lives where. We don't know who has what money, where. Because we're all integrated.
Speaker 0: This project works.
Speaker 4: It truly works. And I'm just I'm just thrilled that I that I can be there. And I hope that I stay there for a long time getting older here.
Speaker 0: But it works.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to be here much longer. We're going to leave after I finish speaking because we haven't eaten. So I won't be here for it. Any questions? If you may have some, but just know that I wouldn't have spent my Monday night when I could be doing many other things which I cherish tonight, which I cherish these days, my Mondays. But I respect all of you for sharing your time, for working so hard, so endlessly for the people of Denver. And because we really do appreciate.
Speaker 0: The hard, tough decisions.
Speaker 4: That you make every single week. And some people love you and some people hate you, and it can be all in one night and but continue to do what you're doing and just know that this citizen of Lowry is very excited about the potential project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Cindy.
Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Cindy Vanderslice. I live in Kress, more to 15 Crime Area Street. I know many of you on the board and it's nice to see all of you. I come here as a conscientious objector to this zoning application, and I come here because I don't want Lowry to become another Cherry Creek. I see the building that has destroyed the community of Cherry Creek, the, the parking there, the the the traffic in that area. The families that that are watching their communities being destroyed by big, tall buildings. And I and I don't want our Lowry to have had that happen. I love the Lowry development. I love what it is. My brother lived there. I love this little township. And I think that that Lowry deserves to continue to have that. But we have 800 units going up in that area right now. And we have another zoning that you're asking for, four, five storeys more. That's putting in another 600 plus cars in that area alone, plus the 150 that you approved a couple of weeks ago in the Kress Mercy, a Cedar Monaco area. The streets in the infrastructure in that area do not support that extra population. We have building going up on Colorado Boulevard between eighth and ninth and 10th at the old C.U. campus. We have building going up on eighth Avenue and Jersey. We have. As I mentioned, the whole Cherry Creek area. This area is been way overbuilt. And yes, you want tax dollars to come in to Denver and yes, you want to prepare for the future of residents coming into Colorado. But let's not destroy what we have right now. I live on the extension of First Avenue that goes west and it turns into crime area, and then it goes on to Third Avenue, which can go straight down into Cherry Creek or go straight ahead to the north onto Sixth Avenue. I have busses. I have cars. I have speeding trucks and people coming down that street. We have over 30 kids in our neighborhood right now that can be run over by extra traffic, trying to avoid the excessive traffic jams that we have on Quebec, Monaco, Colorado Boulevard, Sixth Avenue, Alameda, and my community. I thank you all. And I hope that you think about the excesses that are happening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Hilary Patel, followed by George Swan and Hillary. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you and good evening. My name's Hillary Patel. I live at 2385 Glencoe Street in Denver. I'm the director of Public Relations and marketing at the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. I've served in this role for 15 years. As Monty said, we've been walking the talk at Lowry on Smart Growth since the early 1990s. Just last month, Lowry was named one of the top five neighborhoods in Denver by 50 to 80 magazine. It's the walkability mix of uses and overall vibe that sets Lowry apart. Today, 35,000 people live, work and go to school at Lowry. There are over 100 employers there. It's a three square mile area. It's a town of the size of many towns. Our diverse community offered many different perspectives during the planning for Boulevard One. Some of these are reflected in the more than 60 planned changes that have been made in response to citizen comments in the more than 60 public meetings we've had since 2007. Most people got much of what they wanted, but not all of what they wanted, including the Redevelopment Authority. In our experience over the years, that's a pretty good place to end up because it says that all of the balance, the interests have been balanced during the planning. There are about 20 neighborhoods surrounding Lowry, again, which is a three square mile area. We've worked with all of them over the years. Our Community Advisory Committee was established in 1994 to provide broad community input to our board of directors. All of our 61 rezonings to date have been deliberated both by our Community Advisory Committee and approved by our Board of Directors before we even began the city process. Today, in terms of outreach, 6000 households receive our monthly newsletter like this one that covers the zoning application you're reviewing tonight. 3000 people have registered for email updates about Boulevard one. Our homebuilders get about 50 emails after each update. I receive emails and phone calls every day from people interested in living or opening a business at Boulevard One. Is one of great Denver's great neighborhoods because it is walkable, bikeable and transit friendly. 2570 people per day ride the bus at Lowry. That's enough to fill 50 busses per day. We actually have five RTD routes that serve Lowry and 44 transit stops that serve the community. There are miles of multimodal streets and sidewalks at Lowry, connecting 800 acres of public parks and open space. We'll have 75 bike racks at Boulevard One alone. You know, we're all experiencing Denver's rapid growth. New people, perspectives and ideas bring new vitality to our city, business startups, restaurants and cultural amenities that we all enjoy. Growth also brings change and things like traffic, but the answer to traffic concerns is not to build more low density, primarily single family home neighborhoods where people have to get in their cars and drive to do everything. The better, smarter approach is to build neighborhoods where homes, offices, retail, schools and parks are within walking and biking distances, where different people are coming and going in different ways at different times of day. This disperses traffic. Tonight, zoning application supports this medium density, urban placemaking and is consistent with the same vision in the Denver Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint. Denver Lowry is a local and national model for smart growth, and the same planning appearance planning principles are being applied at Boulevard One. This is the right kind of development in the right place at the right time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is George Swan, followed by Milroy Roy Alexander.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Council members. My name is George Swan. I live in Lowrey at 180 Poplar Street and. I'm here to talk about this. This application. First thing I went online. And I see there's 83 pages in this application with pictures and all that sort of thing. But I was looking for a table that would simplify the information because we hear all about densities and numbers, you know, but there isn't anything about what was it five years ago, three years ago, what is it now? What's a projection? There's nothing really that makes sense. I don't know why that is. I then went online and I looked at the design guidelines of Boulevard One, and maybe that's what they're referring to in the 2013 that this was approved on January 2014. The design guidelines of Boulevard one, it's 108 pages long. And when you read it, it makes me feel good. They talked about the community park and they talked about the plaza. But when I look at the application and I see they're talking about a five story building and I drove up and down that Quebec street and I imagined, you know, what would that look like if there were five storey buildings all along that street? And I see there's a waiver, you know, to try to reduce that from 70 to 65 feet. And there's a waiver over at First Avenue, says they're going to reduce it to three storey buildings. But if you look at the read block in the application, if you look at that red block going to marks five. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is really kind of a limit. Like you can't go over five stories. Is that right? But I would I went to the Lowry Redevelopment Authority building and I walked in and I said, you know what? What is it that they're going to build in this red area, this red zone? And they told me the only person I saw there was one. There were a couple of people that had more information that I could never get in touch with them. But the person that I talked to said that there are no plans. That the zoning is simply going to allow the developer to invite developers in there. So I know this isn't the last word for the residents. If they're going to put up some obnoxious five storey buildings along the whole wall, at least there'll be a chance at the Lowry Development Authority public meetings and at the planning, development and the Council. Maybe I don't know how that quite works. But five storey buildings aren't going to work.
Speaker 0: Mr. Swan, your time is lapsed.
Speaker 8: The time is up. Okay. How can I just say one more word about the community park? You can there you.
Speaker 0: Can be invited back, but there's other people here. 3 minutes are up. Thank you. Mr. Alexander, followed by Katie McCrimmon.
Speaker 1: Members of the council. Good evening. My name is Roy Milroy Alexander. Board chair of the LRA and former CEO of Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. My wife and I live at 7603 East Sixth Place in Lowry. We've been there for the last 15 years, and our 26 year old son is also a Lowry resident. We are extremely proud of the Lowry community. And as an NRA board member, I take my governance role and our governance role just as seriously as I did the chapter for over 22 years. Our board deliberate, deliberates freely and considers all voices, all opinions, as we seek always to lead and to oversee the operations of the authority to our own high standards of performance. As is the case with this particular application, we work with our many shareholders and we exercise due care in the conduct of our responsibility and decision making, all in order to build the great community that Larry is today. We believe that the proposed zoning for the Boulevard One CMCs site that's before you is proper. We have weighed an abundance of neighborhood input that has strengthened the quality of the plan that's before you and with our community in mind. The board took that extra step to cap limits on residential and commercial that Monte Force and others have have mentioned so far. For all our efforts over the last 24 years and in the life of Lori. Lowry has been recognized locally and nationally as an excellent model for smart growth. And having those same principles that made us successful over the years be an integral part of this plan. At Boulevard One, we're not about to change that reputation. Our plan recognizes the various development factors that have to be considered today, including demand and including community concerns. And we also think about the future. But but this plan also helped us stay grounded in the past of Lowry, which we are very proud of. We are excited and proud to be developing this last parcel of community into a smart and you've heard live, learn, work and play neighborhood. And I support the proposal and we recommend your approval. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, Katie McCrimmon. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. My name is Katie McCrimmon. I live at 200 South Kearney Street and I'm a representative of the Kress Moorpark neighborhood. We're one of three R nos in Crest Moore and which I know, you know, is immediately to the west of the Berkeley Annex site. Our neighborhood voted to oppose what we think is an inappropriate proposed zoning change for Berkeley Annex. And before I share my comments with you, I want to read some comments from Jon Fisher, who is the head of one of the other across Arnaud's, which also opposes this zoning change. And John could not be with us tonight. Honorable Denver City Council members I am John Fisher, President of XMR Park Homeowners Inc first filing and I address you in that capacity as well as in my individual capacity as a Denver resident living in close proximity to Lowry and the Boulevard one development. And in each capacity, I urge you to deny the requested zoning because it does not fit the character of the overall development of Lowry, nor is it consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. I also address to you in regard to the rezoning of 195 South Monica Parkway a couple of weeks ago, and I feel compelled to clarify a few misunderstandings which might have played a role in the outcome of that hearing. Since these issues were raised by council during deliberations, first being that many more residents of surrounding neighborhoods were opposed than in favor, as is the case here as well. Second, that Chris Moore is, in fact, closer to the development than Hilltop, and that is the case again here tonight. Third, that Chris Moore is, in fact, contiguous to this development. And again, that is the case here. Again, as this is just across, Monica, from the development and forth and critical to the issues at hand that we were in favor of limited development that was consistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. And so here again are many representatives of surrounding neighborhoods in favor of limited development, but not overdevelopment, as this is proposed tonight and which the requested zoning would permit. For almost one year, I was a member of the Lowry Committee, a community advisory committee, and the as the GDP for Boulevard one was developed at each and every meeting concerned nearby residents spoke articulately, thoughtfully and sometimes passionately about their concerns regarding density. I'm going to skip ahead to a few of my comments because I'm running out of time. We increase our stand with our neighbors in Lowry, Winston Downs and throughout East Denver in demanding zoning that fits our neighborhood. We call on you tonight to postpone this hearing. It is totally inappropriate for a lame duck council. And I'm sorry, I just have to say, what is the truth to be voting on on this very important matter when you could postpone for just a couple of weeks and give people the sense that they're truly being represented? Am I out of time? No. Oh, I have more time. I saw the green light. Okay. Oh, that was just 3 minutes. Okay. If you choose to vote yes tonight and not to delay this decision, we will remember the choices you make as public servants. I know that you care deeply about the legacy you leave behind. You can choose to be like the great leaders in Denver's history. Mayor Spear, who launched extensive efforts to beautify Denver and turn our city into what he called back then even a world class city. George Cranmer, who built our spectacular park system and created Red Rocks and the Winter Park Ski area. Emily Griffith, a visionary who understood the value of education for people of all ages. Federico Pena, who imagined a great city. And Wellington Webb, who added 100,000 people to our city during this tenure, but did so in a careful and considered way. Without turning every quiet Denver neighborhood into a mecca for developers. That is how we feel now. We feel that we are under siege with development and we are not able to handle all this excess traffic. After you voted to support 195 South Monaco and then this will be immediately across the street voting on big decisions after the elections does not pass the sniff test. It's not how we do things in Denver. I urge you again to please delay and not vote on this tonight. You have a choice. You can do what we think is the right thing and delay this hearing. Or you can make the wrong choice and once again do what lobbyists tell you to do. We as citizens feel powerless at times. We tried to meet with several of you regarding the 195 South Monaco issue. We were denied access and yet we saw lobbyists sitting on your couches in your office and spending time with you. And citizens need to feel that they have a stake in these decisions. So we ask you to please deny this and delay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next round of eight speakers are the following. Jim Postman. Kent Lund. Ellen Torres. George Kerwin. David Stanky. Elisabeth Lund. I don't know if this is Mary or Mary Nelle Wolf. Mary. Okay. And Rochelle Newman, if you can all make your way up to the front. Our first speaker again is John Holzman. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 8: Good evening, council members. I am Jim Hartman. 2120 BlueBell Avenue in Boulder. And I'm also a Lowry property owner. I'm part of the ownership group at Hangar two, which is one of the very successful mixed use projects in legacy. Lowery has some of those fine restaurants that were talked about earlier. And I'm also a member of the Design Review Committee for Legacy Library, as well as Boulevard One. And I've been an architect and sustainable property developer in the metro Denver area for 35 years. I strongly support the approval of this Map amendment tonight. I think it's the right thing to do. This is, as has been said, a great example of smart growth. And Denver needs smart growth. We've been national leaders in that for many decades. We should continue with this example of really good development and opportunity at this part of Denver. So I urge you to support the request. And thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, Kent Lund.
Speaker 10: It evening council. My name is Kent one, two or three South Pontiac Live in Park Heights Subdivision, just south of the area we're talking about tonight since 2000. And just quickly, I wanted to introduce in the record a petition that the Park Heights neighborhood presented to the Denver Planning Board for the hearing on May six, as I understand it, doesn't necessarily transfer through, but there are about 82 homes in Park Heights. There are, by my count, about 78 or 79 signature, all in opposition to this to this rezoning change. And as was stated earlier, it's too much. It's Cherry Creek. We're in favor of of reasonable development, low heights, low density or lower density setbacks. We're concerned about the traffic. We've heard some people pooh pooh the traffic. That's a big issue on crack. It's a dangerous situation. And the concerns that my neighbors focused on were the overall density, the lack of adequate parking, the building heights that we've been talking about, the lack of adequate setbacks and traffic safety. And so I was struck by what what you said, Councilperson Sheppard, about how the process should work. Our neighborhood and others have been very active going to our our councilperson this last minute. And we appreciate you meeting with us. The input has been there. We hope it does work that way. They hope there is a flexibility to do this in a smart way. We don't need Cherry Creek. And thank you very much. We respectfully urge you to deny this zoning change. And I'll present this for the record.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Lund. Elaine Torres. Followed by Greg Kerwin. Mr. KIRWIN.
Speaker 8: Here I am, tourist. But I'd be happy to speak with you.
Speaker 0: Are you? Are you?
Speaker 8: I'm Greg Kerwin.
Speaker 0: Okay. Hi.
Speaker 8: Good afternoon. Good evening. So I live at 200 Carney Street in the Crest Moore neighborhood just a few blocks from Buckley Annex. And first, I agree that tonight in this lame duck session, you should do the right thing and postpone this vote to the new council sworn in after July 20th. You owe it to Denver voters to give the new council members a voice on this important issue which will shape the future of East Denver. Now, Teresa Lucero pointed out that on a 2 to 1 ratio, 215 letters were sent opposing this. They would fill up this whole room if they came. Why aren't they here? They saw how the council treated people three weeks ago from Chris Moore, who did fill up the room and kept you till 230 in the morning. Did the council listen to the neighbors? No. Council knew better. It was arrogant. It told them, you're going to take this density because every neighborhood has to do its part to stop urban sprawl on the front range. Why are neighbors upset? Why are residents upset with this particular zoning? Because they see CMC's five urban center zoning as a beachhead. Do you remember the chart that Teresa Lucero put in front of you, surrounded by single family homes, not C-Max five. What is C-Max five? It's what's sprouting up all over Cherry Creek. And as you've heard several times, that's what people are afraid of. Once this zoning, this beachhead is planted in the middle of Loughery, developers will be lining up at KPD, asking to rezone the nearby parcels. And you know what they're going to say? Look, you have this urban category now in LOWRY. We should be able to do it, too. We should get to tear down old homes and Mayfair just north to add this intensity that Denver needs. That's why most East Denver residents are horrified. They're horrified by the new canyons of tall buildings in Cherry Creek, and they don't want to see that spread further east. And we heard you talk three weeks ago about how you think you can't consider traffic. I think you're legally wrong about that and exposed to a legal challenge. But the city streets cannot accommodate the traffic, and that's what people are worried about. The LRA cannot explain to you why x five is the appropriate zoning. Now, it was interesting to hear about mixed use and the urban intensity with the text amendments that you heard before this hearing. Urban center zoning is four near the city center and near major streets. They're asking for 18 acres of S.M. X five, ostensibly to build 450 apartments. It doesn't match. They don't need five storey buildings to add 450 apartments to 18 acres, along with some commercial space. It's way over the top. But why are people afraid? Because by changing the zoning on this tonight, you will create enormous permanent pressure on the surrounding neighborhoods, destabilizing them because there will be a wave of future zoning requests based on this CMCs five zoning. Madam Chair, do I still have some time? Yes, you do. So I sent you. I'm a lawyer. I sent you a detailed letter explaining why, as a matter of quasi judicial decision making, which is your job tonight, you're not here as politicians. Why? It doesn't fit the zoning code categories. In brief, it is not consistent with adopted plans. It is remarkable to me to see the LRE saying the GDPR never brought before this council in the supposedly 61 times they've been here is an adopted plan. And I urge you to seek guidance from the city attorney about whether the 2013 GDP is an adopted plan. It was only adopted by the Denver Planning Board, not by the City Council. You're committing legal error to rely on that and that that's the plan that the LRA is handing to you. As a lawyer, I'm offended by that kind of freedom with the zoning code when that's not what the zoning code tells you. I hope that you will follow the law tonight instead of making decisions as politicians, adding your own personal views and your personal biases, because that's what you're called upon to do. The last thing I'd like to do very briefly, Christine O'Connor could not be here tonight. I have handed up a chart which is six pages long, where she goes through in great detail responding to inaccurate statements from the developer of the LRA. And I want to highlight a few of those. First, on page one under height, the LRA says the maximum building height is 65 feet, like with the rest of Lowery. 65 feet is not the maximum height in the rest of Lowrey. Under the Lowrey design guidelines, it's 45 feet, except in the town center, which is quite small, where it is 62nd, and this is under planning process. The argument is that the plan mirrors adjacent land, uses drive Quebec and look east where these are going to be and you will see single family homes not adjacent land uses that match Cemex five. There's one office tower there, but you will create destabilizing pressure to have those existing buildings torn down and densify it if you approve this. Third on page one, because the proposed CMC's five with waivers was discussed at most of these meetings. That is completely false. The LRA never held any public meetings with neighbors to discuss the CMCs five zoning. They were at very preliminary stages to discuss things like the GDP. Turn to page four of Christine O'Connor's comments at the top of the page. The argument is that the city's land use plans include the Buckley Annex GDP. I've already commented that that's a legal error and you're making a mistake to rely on that GDP as an adopted plan under density. On page four, she mentions the LRA telling you their density is 11.4 units per acre. Then why do they need five storeys on 18 acres of CMCs five for that kind of density? The C-Max five is way out of whack with what they say they're trying to do. The number six necessity of this zoning choice. They say that seems.
Speaker 0: Fair when your time is lapsed. Thank you. Our next speaker is David Stankey, followed by Elizabeth Lund.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Madam President. Council. I'm David Stankey. I'm with Infinity Home Collection. I'm a homebuilder in Denver, Colorado. I'm here tonight in support of Cinemax five zoning for the Lowry Boulevard. One project. My company, Infiniti Home Collection. We've been building continuously in the city of Denver since about 2001. We've built almost 2000 high end production homes in the city. We've always focused on building special homes in special places. And one of the beauties of our business is we're continually learning and designing for today's home buyers. They're a little more diverse, a little more informed, and quite a bit more forward thinking than any other generation. I've had the pleasure of knowing they aspire to live in the city here city, Denver, actually, most of them already do live in the city. That's their desire. Boulevard one is exactly the type of neighborhood that reflects and fulfills their desires. Mixed use is what should be created on such a special piece of land. Today's homebuyers desire good schools, services, entertainment, amenities all within reasonable walking distances of their homes. They don't like to drive. They actually prefer to walk, ride a bike, take an override. Whenever that wherever they need to go, they welcome diversity of product. They appreciate the urban nature of community. They love the parks. They love connectivity to all the great Denver venues. They crave simple gathering spaces, be it a pocket park or coffee shop, boutique store, restaurant, wine bar, yoga class, whatever. That's that's where they're connecting to all of their neighbors. Today's consumers are also looking for high performance homes that incorporate. Smart, energy efficient, sustainable qualities that you really care about our planet. They embrace the conscious efforts of a developer whose energy guidelines are strict and consistent throughout. They welcome new technology, obviously, and they love fresh architectural styles to demonstrate their desire to live in Boulevard One. We currently have a waiting list of over 150 people for 18 lots. That list is in addition to a master list of about 1500 people who have expressed serious interest long before we started our first home. This diversity of our product offering is reflective of the diversity in today's active buyers their traditional young families, their young couples, their single women, their single parents, the new grandparents. They're empty nesters and they're millennials. Millennials have nowhere to go. They are renting. They've got high student loan debt. They're the next generation and the biggest generation. They're the ones that are looking for those rentals in great neighborhoods with with this type of zoning. They're moving up. They're moving down the movement across, but everybody's looking for something special in their lives. I strongly encourage you to support this, and thank you very much for your time today.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Stanky. Elizabeth Lund, you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I do have a hard copy of a PowerPoint, and I would ask that it be distributed to the council members prior to my speaking because I would like to address it. Have you look at it while I'm speaking? If you would.
Speaker 0: What does it look like?
Speaker 4: It sounds like this we have. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Thank you very much for allowing me to be here today and to speak to you. My name is Elizabeth Lund. I live at 203 South Pontiac Street, which is in a little subdivision of Lowery called Park Heights. We have lived in Park Heights since 2000. My family and I, it's about 80 homes or so. It's a small neighborhood. It's so small we don't have our own R.A. But we did sign a petition, which my husband actually referred to a little while ago, to express our concerns about this application. Our concerns are largely related to safety and density and other neighborhoods. Other arenas went along with our petition and they adopted it at their meetings. So this petition has very wide neighborhood support among many neighborhoods in this area. If you would, please look at the first page of my PowerPoint presentation, my hard copy. Sorry that it's not the most professional looking, but we did the best we could. So the first page is what we thought the The Buckley Annex would look like in 2008 when the LRA was working on it. And it appeared to be a nice mix of businesses, restaurants, apartments, all different types of homes. And so we thought that that would work. Page two The guiding principle that we thought we had at Lowry was to keep young families in Denver with smart new urbanism. And we think that's great. We are all for Smart, New Urbanism. And the Tom Markham was the executive director of LRA for a long time, and he also felt that it was important that the development was compatible with the surrounding areas. Page three is some of the success that we've had at Lowry and that we've enjoyed. We really like the fact that we have 184 Colorado trust homes. We like that we have apartments, townhomes, row homes, fancy dancy million dollar homes and schools and businesses. We've got it all. We like it and we want the same thing to keep on working. But we're afraid with this development. It is not. It's just too much. It is urbanism on steroids. It's not smart development. 90% of the 18 acres that you have before you today in the application is surrounded by single family townhomes, apartments , homes, a library and future row houses and single family homes that have not yet been built. And we don't feel that the staff has presented this accurately to this city council. On page six, there is a diagram of the surrounding neighborhoods and to orient you. Monaco Parkway on the left, Quebec on the right, the big white stuff on the far right corner with all that blocky stuff. That is what we're talking about today. That is the application. Park Heights, where I live, is immediately south of this development and there are houses to the right of it on Quebec. If you turn to page eight, that is the east side of Quebec. Those are the types of houses that will be next to this development. And then page nine is my neighborhood, Park Heights. This view is looking across from Boulevard one to where Park Heights is. We think that the staff pictures failed to convey this area appropriately. For example, on page ten, this is a copy of the staff presentation that Kopec building on the far right top. That is a four story building, but it has a huge setback of 100 or so feet and it is only near the northeast edge of this application. Most of this is surrounded by residences, the setbacks and this is on page 11 that were originally planned for Quebec, were supposed to be 35 feet. All of a sudden they disappeared. And as much as we like to walk to places, Quebec is a very, very dangerous street. I have told our teenage driver that he may not turn left on Quebec from where we live. It is too dangerous. Quebec is overburdened. On page 12 is another picture of what we thought we were going to get with this development. Again, this is from the 2008 Buckley Annex redevelopment plan. Page 13 has a quote on it about the urban center and neighborhood context. Urban centers such as this are supposed to be along major corridors at transit station areas and near and around downtown. This is taken from Denver's own website. If you'll look at the the source below.
Speaker 0: This.
Speaker 4: Link where time is.
Speaker 11: 12 that says Explore zoning.
Speaker 0: Your time is lapsed, miss.
Speaker 11: I got 15. The very last page. This land is the Lowry Town Center. The one.
Speaker 0: You're. Your time is lapse. Will you please. Will you please sit down? Okay. Our next speaker is Mary Nell Wolf, followed by Rochelle Newman.
Speaker 4: Good evening members of council I'm Mary now Wolf and I live at 4501 East Sixth Avenue Parkway and what has been referred to tonight as the lame duck council. I want to tell you, I appreciate it, because during those 61 appearances that Lowery has been here, you have all the history. During the 33 years that I have lived in our part of Denver, we have seen tremendous growth and change. We have had two of the largest city infill projects in recent memory and now the explosive resurgence of people wanting to move closer to the city center. Anticipation of this led me to volunteer for a variety of neighborhood based task forces over the years, including the Community Advisory Committee at Lowery. I have been working on the redevelopment of Lowry since Pat Schroeder served in Congress. So suffice it to say, it's been a long time. As with anything new, there will be those who like what was done and those who deplore any change. Lowry is no exception with sensitivity to this credo. We made every effort to hold numerous public meetings on every topic possible. Reaching consensus was always the goal, and although that wasn't always achieved, we feel that we have the majority of the community in agreement with the decisions which were made and are currently being proposed. The redevelopment of Boulevard one is no exception to the controversy which changed in genders. However, the planning of Boulevard One has incorporated a mixed use approach which will not only benefit the new residences but integrate well into the existing neighborhoods. It provides parks a full range of housing options, office space, restaurants and businesses, all with this sensitivity to traffic patterns and restricted building heights. And if I may, I would like to point out that this is adjacent to the former Crest Moore Downs, now LAX at Lowry, which has six high rise buildings of seven floors each. It is no secret that the city of Denver is challenged by too much traffic with little help from mass transit but more convenient public options . And we have tried very hard to create an environment where people can live, work, learn and play. And we have sought to lessen the impacts of traffic and provide all forms of modality throughout the parcel, as well as sensitivity into integrating onto the existing streets. I ask you tonight to approve the application for Boulevard One, a nationally recognized and award winning example of how to incorporate the old with the new, and to keep our city and neighborhoods a vibrant, a vibrant place for all. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Rochelle Newman.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Rachel Newman. And I'm Rachel. I'm here as a Lowry resident and as a community representative who volunteers on the Lowry Redevelopment Authority Board of Directors. I've lived in Lowry since 2004, having moved from LoDo when my husband and I decided to start a family. At the time I was an employee of one of the nation's largest homebuilding companies. So I had researched communities all across the Denver area before deciding on Lowry. Lowry was the ideal neighborhood for us because of its emphasis on family lifestyles such as schools, parks and open spaces, as well as restaurants and historic buildings. The history of the community blended with modern amenities and the convenient city location were and remain priorities for us. I perceive Lowry, both Legacy Lowry and the Boulevard one parcel, which is designed with the same standards as legacy as having the appropriate density. Lowry is incredibly residential, but with scale, which you would expect this close to downtown. Some people are comparing Lowry to Cherry Creek, and I just don't see anything close to Cherry Creek's density overcrowding or parking issues here in Lowry. I do not believe that there's a traffic traffic problem overtaking our neighborhood. I perceive an incredibly positive community on the whole. Contrary to what opponents of this project are saying. We on the LRA board carefully balance our obligations to the cities of Denver and Aurora and our community. I listen to every comment from the community and we as a board spend good portions of every meeting carefully considering and debating each one. That is our obligation, and that is what we do. We're committed to continue working with the community to ensure that Lowry exceeds the expectations that so many of us have for this great community . 35,000 people work, live, play and learn at Lowry. This diverse community is an important part of Denver. Yet we have created a unique character and lifestyle, thanks in large part, in my opinion, to the open spaces in this characters. What is being proposed for this parcel is Boulevard one. Boulevard one is the last part of Lowry's planning process. This application is the heart of Boulevard One. It provides the amenities that make the single and multifamily residential components so attractive. And that's what will make Boulevard one occupy the same esteem as does Legacy Lowry. I sincerely hope you'll approve this rezoning application. I thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next eight speakers are Jamie Fogel. Bob Moody, Kathleen Ruby, Dick Marshall. Mark Belge. Peter Benson, Jane Harrington and Brian Wert.
Speaker 1: Hello. Good evening, Madam President and council. My name is Jamie Fogle, live at 2876 Paris Street, Northwest Denver. I'm a landscape architect and associate with Design Workshop who helped author the redevelopment plan in 2007 and continue to work in Lowry and Boulevard one. Lowry is a community defined by choices. These choices include a mixed use town center, the first housing types, multiple schools, churches, library and numerous recreational amenities, all of which connect pedestrians to the extensive network of open space. These diverse destinations and choices draw people out of their homes to circulate in the larger Lowry community. And the spectrum of these great public spaces will now be better connected to Boulevard One, having personally contributed to the planning and landscape architecture in various parts of Lowry for the past 17 years, my, me and my colleagues have clear understanding of what makes a great, vibrant community. We are a firm focused on inclusive and comprehensive design and led the planning efforts for Boulevard One. We know Lowry and what it stands for healthy and vibrant neighborhoods with a wealth of choices boulevard one will complete the hole in the proverbial donut. LOWRY And we'll be the most complete neighborhood with access to mixed use and urban style living, integrated with over 13 acres of parks and open space. This will be a great thing from a community planning perspective. When you pass through a Lowry neighborhood and see people outside moving on sidewalks, engaging with each other as neighbors, enjoying themselves in outdoor community spaces or supporting a town center, it's a sign of a healthy place. Boulevard One's Plan. Evolution has spanned many years with extensive public input. This culminated in a plan that respects the edges by mirroring similar land uses, reduced the densities by 33% and connects the local neighborhood street network, boulevard ones block pattern and scale , building heights, street widths, interspersed parks and open space and moderate development density are consistent with a local neighborhood center in an area of change, with a desire to transform transition into a complete neighborhood. Some have compared Boulevard One's development plan central to the well-established regional retail destination, Cherry Creek North. While they both have a mix of commercial residential streets and parks, the comparison is more apples to Oranges Boulevard. One maximum square commercial square footage will be 200,000 square feet, while Turkey North and the mall are over 2 million square feet and as a result, have much higher traffic congestion associated with the Regional Attraction Boulevard. One will create additional amenities opportunities for small and medium sized businesses to flourish, new street networks and diverse parks that provide additional choices for the residents. The proposed Annex five zoning will allow for development to give people diverse destinations and choices which results in a healthy and vibrant neighborhood. I believe in this plan and support the rezoning of this section of Boulevard One. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next is Bob Moody. Mr. Moody, you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Mm hmm.
Speaker 8: Madam President, members of the council. Thank you for having me tonight. My name is Bob Moody. I live at 122 South Locust Street. Many of the comments I make before you tonight are the same as those I made in testimony before you in support of the rezoning of Monaco and Cedar and myself, my wife, and several of our neighbors. Thank you for that support. We have lived on Chris Moore Park for 18 years. We enjoy our park setting and have eagerly awaited the redevelopment of the Air Force Finance Center, a not particularly pretty sight when surrounded by barbed wire fences. That in itself generated as much or more traffic than the proposal that is before you. We are the Chris Moore neighbors closest to the redevelopment and wholeheartedly support it. We already utilized Lowry's many amenities restaurants, shopping and recreation. Opponents argue that the redevelopment will harm our existing neighborhoods. But those of us who utilize Lowry's amenities believe it's a huge benefit. My background is in commercial real estate development, finance, and I believe the plans being presented by the Redevelopment Authority are sustainable and marketable. Denver is a landlocked city and in order to thrive, has to be willing to embrace increased densities. I'm old enough to have been part of the no growth ballot initiatives of the eighties and was always amazed by those who wanted no outward development but fight density. Well, folks, then, as now, you can't have it both ways. There is no magical balance between growth and stagnation, and cities that refuse, for whatever reason to grow, are faced with the suburban flight that so adversely affects so many of our cities today. When it comes to rental properties, which the opponents do not favor, I suggest they read up on the ongoing debate over construction defects and the erm the effect the current law has on for sale product. I was involved in the defects fight for too many years and today's venue is not the place to rehash that ongoing battle . But in the meantime, we have more and more rentals. Also more and more of my generation. Or forgoing their single family homes for the convenience of rental accommodation. I have seen the propaganda of the neighborhood associations. I visited their website, which is full of half truths and innuendo. I continually see scare tactics about five storey, 100 foot high apartment complexes proposed for Boulevard one. I've looked at the plans, I've read the literature, and I've asked the questions. 100 foot high apartments are not part of this proposal. But the misinformation continues. The LRA plans have been vetted. The plan is reasonable. Lowry and Boulevard one are a welcome addition to the Denver fabric. The completion of the Lowry redevelopment is an exciting opportunity for Denver, and I encourage your support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Kathleen Ruby, followed by Dick Marshall. Good evening. Thank you, Madam President. Members of council. My name is Kathleen Ruby, and my address is to 95 Oneida Street, Denver. I'm here today to ask you to support the zoning application for Boulevard One. My husband and I have lived in Mayfair Park neighborhood for over 20 years. Currently, I serve on the board of directors of Mayfair Park, and for approximately 16 years I have been active on numerous Lowry Redevelopment Task Forces and community committees. I believe the development of Lowry has immeasurably benefited Mayfair Park and all of us Denver. We now have a vibrant community with restaurants, shopping and gathering places. The Boulevard one development is directly south of Mayfair Park, adjacent to our southern border along First Avenue. It is the completion of the Lowry vision and an excellent example of infill development for Denver. Many community members, including myself, worked for several years on the planning of Boulevard One in a way that will provide additional retail, dining and employment opportunities, along with much needed housing for the residents of Denver. The planning process involved multiple task forces comprised of area.
Speaker 4: Residents and numerous community meetings.
Speaker 0: Ironically, opponents to this rezoning are expressing the same concerns about transportation, traffic and density that the surrounding neighborhoods did back in the 1990s.
Speaker 4: When the Lowry.
Speaker 0: Redevelopment began. They have a limited view of what should be included in the development, and I believe that is wrong from a planning and.
Speaker 4: Civic responsibility.
Speaker 0: Viewpoint. From Jennifer Moulton to today we have worked to. Build a city that has all forms of housing products and a planning boulevard one, as with all of Lowry. Affordable housing was a priority. Lowry has always been committed to provide housing opportunities for all, and the fact of the matter is, density is required to meet that goal . Few may be aware that there are over 700 units in the Lexus at Lowry Apartments along the southwest border of Boulevard One, and they include approximately six, seven story buildings which have been there for over 40 years. As with any change, there is always fear of the unknown. And for those of us that went through those initial years with the real Lowry redevelopment, we learned that change is not always the negative we anticipated, but instead a positive experience with the collaboration and concessions made by both the LRA and the neighborhoods. Lowry has become an award winning, desirable community. My husband and I enjoy and spend a great deal of time in Lowry shops, offices, libraries and restaurants. We cannot imagine living here without them and Boulevard one will only add more of these amenities. The requested zoning for the completion of Boulevard One is appropriate and I urge you to support it. Thank you, Miss Ruby. Dick Marshall.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. Members of the Council. First, I'd like to thank you for all of your service, particularly those that are about to leave this office. I think you do a great job in representing all of the diverse interests that come before you. And I appreciate your dedication as a citizen and resident of Denver. I'm Dick Marshall. I live in Congress Park. I'm a landscape architect with over 40 years of practice in the city and city and county of Denver and have worked on a number of city and county projects as well as in other Denver neighborhoods. I am currently a member of the Lourey Design Review Committee, have been for about 15 years and currently serve on the Legacy Lowry Committee as well as on the Boulevard One Design Review Committee. As you've heard many times tonight, Lowry has been a phenomenal success and is one of the most successful national models of redevelopment of an abandoned tract of federal land and is now a thriving, economically viable, mixed use community that a lot of people enjoy and live in. Boulevard one is poised to extend those successes across Québec with even higher goals for energy conservation, connectivity, walkability and design quality. The current mixed use proposal represents a great opportunity for a diverse mix of residences, retail and commercial uses. Today's residents, as evidenced by Infiniti's experience of having 100 and some reservations for 18 lots, is testimony to the fact that that is exactly the kind of product that people are looking for as buyers of housing today. They love the mixed use environment in which they can live, work, shop and play. I believe many who have already signed up to live in Boulevard one are attracted by this exact mixed use vision. The mixed use guidelines, coupled with the waivers to transition heights along the edges and the maximum placed on the overall development help safeguard the character of the existing community of Lowry Boulevard, one and the other surrounding neighborhoods. Further, the enhanced design guidelines and the rigorous design review process, which I might add, is conducted in public open meetings, ensure the highest quality outcome for this exciting neighborhood. The guidelines were actually rewritten and strengthened. Anticipating Boulevard one coming online and that was done with the participation of several existing Lowry residents. I strongly concur with the planning staff recommendation of the proposed rezoning to TMX five with waivers and respectfully ask you to approve this request. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mark Bell, Chief.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Mark Bachi. I'm a Lowery resident. Lowery board member since 2002. I'll thank Madam President, city council members for taking the time this evening to listen to all the voices to the outgoing members of city council. Thank you for your many, many years of service and the fact that you're actually fulfilling the balance of your terms and having this hearing here this evening. So. Well, thank you for running through the finish line. There's no issue we've dealt with in the last 14 years that's drawn more planning, more neighborhood input than the issue before you tonight, particularly this piece. We had to balance the interest of four separate people on a very narrow strip of land here to satisfy the interest of Mayfair of the folks at Park Heights, the folks across the street and Quebec, as well as the folks across from across Moorpark. And the plan that we came up with is truly inspired. It does more than I could possibly imagine to balance those interests. It really reflects the best of what Larry has to offer. So we've had a very spirited and loyal opposition. Many folks have been consistent contributors for all the 14 years I've been on these boards, and I'll thank them for their comments. The library redevelopment of board does not have the luxury of cherry picking or only dealing with the facts that are pertinent to us. We have to deal with all the factors. We have a fiscal responsibility to fill out a plan that pencils out and meets all the requirements of Lowrey and what we're tasked with doing. We've done that. We've done an inspired job doing it. We've taken it as seriously as anything we've ever done. We'll ask you for your support, and thank you for said support.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Beattie. Next speaker Peter Benson, followed by Jane Harrington and Brian Wurtz.
Speaker 8: Caribbean Council members Peter Benson of Cobble Urban Homes 5291 East Yale Avenue. Our company, Couple Urban Homes, focuses on unique residential urban infill communities and walkable neighborhoods. We look at lots of varieties of sites throughout Denver and build in some newer infill developments in a lot of older neighborhoods where you can walk in and be a part of the community. We're very proud to be a builder in Boulevard One, where to start our first homes, hopefully in the next 60 days or so. But, you know, when you look back at the history of Lowry, there's lots of talk about walkable neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: The Elyria has.
Speaker 8: Actually been doing it for a couple of decades. So there's not just a pipe dream of here and hoping it will work the done it and executed it. And we look forward to being part of the next phase of that. That's a the aura has met the right balance for a greater Bond neighborhood and boulevard one to have involved lots of variety of residential plans, commercial retail parks, amenities and yes, density. Density is an integral, important and positive part of the urban and a vital urban neighborhood. Cities and towns throughout Colorado are begging landowners and developers to to zone the property for mixed use development. And many times they're forcing it upon landowners. The market's not really ready for it. You've got a great opportunity.
Speaker 1: Here where you have all the ingredients in place.
Speaker 8: The residents desire it as shown by the interest. We have another builders, the you've got a.
Speaker 1: Very willing.
Speaker 8: And visionary developer willing to do it and the market's ready for it. So I encourage you to vote tonight in favor of the rezoning. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Jane Harrington. Good evening. My name is Jane Harrington. I live at 2264 Holly Street in Denver. I'm the executive director of the Lowry Community Land Trust, now known as.
Speaker 6: The Colorado Community Land Trust. We are created by the Lowry Redevelopment.
Speaker 0: Authority to fulfill their requirement.
Speaker 10: For affordable.
Speaker 6: Homeownership. We have 186 homes at Lowry that are.
Speaker 0: All still owner occupied and still affordable after ten years.
Speaker 6: And we are.
Speaker 0: We'll be developing more and Boulevard.
Speaker 1: One.
Speaker 6: Without any advertising, without even knowing our unit mix or our design. Yet we have people calling to be on our.
Speaker 0: Interests list for those.
Speaker 6: Units as we have a waiting list for all of our homes at Lowry.
Speaker 1: Um.
Speaker 0: Shortly after, one of our homeowners bought her unit.
Speaker 8: At.
Speaker 0: Lowry, she called me one morning and she said.
Speaker 6: I am so excited. I walked over to my favorite bagel store. I'm having a cup of coffee, having my bagel before I go grocery shopping and walk.
Speaker 0: Back to my house.
Speaker 6: Never having to use her car. That is what our homeowners are experiencing at Lowry. They work in the vicinity.
Speaker 0: Their children are educated in the area.
Speaker 6: And they can do without their car on many, many occasions. We are looking.
Speaker 0: Forward to bringing more folks to Lowry from the area, many.
Speaker 6: That are already working at Lowry.
Speaker 0: And we urge you to approve this zoning. Thank you. Thank you, Brian WERTZ.
Speaker 7: Good evening. I'm Brian Word. I reside at 250 Eudora Street in Denver. I have been a member of the LRA's Community Advisory Committee since its inception in 1994. Much of what I'd like to say has been very well stated already, so I won't do that. But I want to restate, having participated in all of it, that the development of the GDP for Boulevard One is the result of some several dozen meetings over a period of about five years. And I want to assure you that it was the most intensive planning process that has occurred in all of Lowry. The result of the one of the results of the GDP was a significant modification that Hillary mentioned earlier, some 60 different changes. The application before you this evening is in full conformance with the GDP. And I would like to encourage your support.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last eight speakers are the following. Troy Moore. Adam Sexton, Don Home. Rick. Jeff Willis, Marcus Bochner, Virginia White, John D Rungs and Kevin Yoshida.
Speaker 4: Hello.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Council members. Madam President, my name is Troy Moore. I live at 507 Magnolia Street in Mayfair Park. I kind of come to you tonight wearing three hats. One, I am the Mayfair Park Kano president. I am also the Jaden Court and Lowry president, and I'm also an investor in the Lowry area. I want to start by saying that we absolutely support this zoning request. It's very, very important to keep this momentum going. The hard work done by all the staff, including the CAC committee, Monte Hillary, the past city council members, everybody who has led up to this point now is very, very important. We must not look back. We must continue to go forward. I understand that we have a lot of opponents that are worried, nervous, scared. I believe that a lot of that will work out itself once this development is constructed, as did the original Lowry area. It's a beautiful community. We welcome what is going on now. Just so you know, our neighborhoods connect directly with this new development of Boulevard One. Before, we used to look at a berm on First Avenue, and now we have streets that actually connect. And with that, we want to embrace our new neighbors. We are very happy for this diversity that's going to be happening to the south of us. It is enhanced our neighborhood to an incredible excitement of new construction folks wanting to come in and purchase older homes and remodel, add on great build new ones. And this is the type of activity that Denver is promoting. And we love it. We want to welcome our streets. We want folks to use them. They all belong to the city. We are not a gated or walled community. We welcome everyone and I want to thank every one of you, city council members and the ones that are departing. Thank you for your tenure. Thank you for your hard work. It is not an easy job what you do. I can hardly public speak and I can only imagine what you go home at night having to absorb with everyone. So thank you again very, very much and to all the staff member for the city and county of Denver. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Next speaker, Adam Sexton.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Thank you for your time and for a very lengthy evening. I'm going to try to abbreviate my my way does it. It's just similar to what has been said. But my name is Adam Sexton. I live at 904 Spruce Court and Lowry. I'm here tonight in support of the rezoning application. I followed redevelopment and Lowry keenly as my job brought me there. In 2009, we brought a new school to Lowry Community, which is currently educating more than 650 students, more serving more than 450 families. And when we came to Lowry, there were about 300 students with the school last year, my wife, two children, age seven and four, and I moved to Lowry from Washington Park to be closer to the school, to work and to be in a community that we had admired for some time. I will say that there was trepidation in moving from a very old, established neighborhood like Washington Park to Lowry, but it has exceeded all expectations. We have we walk cycle to to school, to work dinner parks, library and couldn't be happier. And so I think Lowry is very unique. I don't think we should strive to be like other neighborhoods. I think there's character diversity. The mixed use makes Lowry a really special place, and there's a quality of life in Lowry that I think that Boulevard one will only enhance. And I do hope that you do pass this. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. Done. Can you pronounce your last name for me?
Speaker 10: Daniel. Daniel Hambrick.
Speaker 0: Oh, my goodness. Okay. Thank you so much.
Speaker 10: And good evening, counsel, and thank you for this evening. My name is Daniel Hambrick. My family and I live at 6400 East Fourth Avenue. We support the rezoning application as submitted by the LRA. I'm a business owner and a resident in East Denver. Although we live in Kress for most of our time is spent in Lowery. Our children go to Lowery. We work with the local businesses. We shop and eat there often. We truly enjoy what Lowery has offered and will continue to offer with this new phase. I strongly believe that this phase will complete the neighborhood. The proposed mixes, densities and combination of uses is exactly what this area of Denver needed. I feel LRE has taken into account everyone's opinions and concerns. The plan has been carefully balanced and we look forward to this project actually moving forward. Please support the application and thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Jeff Willis.
Speaker 1: Council members. Thank you. My name is Jeff Willis. I live at 364 Ash Street. I know you've had lots of comments tonight, so I promise to be brief. I am a resident of the near nearby hilltop neighborhood and I'm also president of Berkeley Homes. Berkeley Homes is a privately held Colorado homebuilder. We've been building in the Denver metro area for over 30 years. We built in Lowry's East Park neighborhood and have just started construction on homes and Boulevard one. We have recently begun meeting with potential homebuyers and one of the aspects that is particularly attractive to them about Boulevard one is the mixed use component of the neighborhood. They want to be able to leave their cars at home and walk to shops and restaurants. This includes buyers of all types and demographics, from singles to families to empty nesters. The lower community and the Lowry Redevelopment Authority have been very successful over the past two decades in creating a wonderful , vibrant community that integrates mixed housing types, whether it's single family homes, townhouses, condos or apartments, with opportunities for residents and others to work, shop and eat. As a nearby resident and as a builder within Boulevard One, I am in support of the CMA s five zoning request and encourage the City Council to pass the zoning application this evening. I believe it is fully within the character and use of the existing and future Lowry neighborhood. This will be a great amenity to an already great community. Once again, thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker, Marcus Portner. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Council President. Council members. My name is Marcus Bochner. I'm in her office at 72/91 Avenue in Lowery. I'm a consultant to the Lowery Development Authority. I live in Hilltop and also office in Lowery. I am here to say it's an honor to present to the duly elected member city council. We appreciate your support and listening to this long hearing. I have been asked as one of the final speakers in support of this application to summarize the 60 plus meetings that we've had on this project, the over 140 letters of support that were sent in, and the 25 speakers that have spoken tonight. This image that is in front of you is an image of Lowery, and you don't have to see. It's the entire 1800 of acres of Lowery. And all of those piece of papers represent individual rezonings that have been filed on this site. These are the 6061 rezoning applications that have effectuated the creation of this great neighborhood. It represents hundreds and hundreds of community meetings and the collaboration through a very tried and true process of 20 plus years of a CAC, a board and voluntary community input into this process. Finally, this image is more illustrative of an area of change than words could ever describe. These 61 rezoning applications the comprehensive plan, the blueprint, Denver. They are the basis of this application. On top of that base, LRA was asked to do a multi-year planning process that resulted in a general development plan that was unanimously approved by Denver City Council. From there, we have already done three. Zoning is approved by this summer City Council for Boulevard one, and this application was approved unanimously by Planning Board one month ago. In addition, I think the one thing that I just want to bring back to what we're focusing on tonight is what's right before you. Remarkably, we have all agreed, I think all the speakers have agreed that mixed use and a mix of uses at this site is appropriate. There has definitely been some discussion about the the height, what should be here. Some have said it should be lower than five heights. But everybody has come back to a mixed use. We believe five stories is entirely appropriate. Immediately across the street is a 60 foot office building and there is be three zoning and Cemex eight is at the Lowry at the hangar. This urban context zoning is already in. LOWRY This is not the beachhead. It is already in. Lowry. So I think the one thing to remember, when you have a five storey mixed use zone district, there are only two contexts. It's in the code. There are only two contexts for a five story mixed use, suburban or urban. This is not a suburban project. We are developing 70 acres of infill urban development. In many ways we are creating the context. We believe this is the right zoned district. Finally, and I will say, I think this is the first 3 minutes. Is that right? Sorry. I think that it's important to go back through that. This 70 acre site is urban context. Suburban context has the street, then a sea of parking surface lots and then the building. That's not what we're trying to create here. It's not what this Denver City Council in this city has worked so hard to create in successful mixed use projects. We are emulating this growth and the proper urban form and thus we believe that urban center is the right zoned district for this site and help effectuate the vision we have for Boulevard One. Lastly, in closing, I have to say beachhead is an interesting term for me for a former Lowry Air Force base, that the term was used a number of times tonight. But I think in many ways it was used as a precedent. This will be precedent setting. We have said it, and I'm sorry if we've said it too many times. 61 Zoning the comm plan blueprint. Denver, the GDP. That's the precedent. That's what's in front of you. This is the last, almost last zoning that says entire site and then it will be built out. Nobody's coming back to rezone other areas. This is the development and we will turn and transition to an area of stability. With all of that, I will say this is the gathering place. This is the heart of Boulevard One. We respectfully request your support for this rezoning. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Virginia White, followed by John DeRose and our final speaker will be Kevin Yoshida. Hi. My name is Virginia White. I live at 255 South Kearny Street. And I'll keep this brief because I think I'll get home early tonight. Considering the last meeting, uh, the folks from the redevelopment agency stated that the Transportation Development had no comments. Did they consider the impact of all the developments that are going up? Build and transportation will follow is putting the cart before the horse. Please, I ask you to please oppose this. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. White.
Speaker 4: John Tyrone's.
Speaker 1: Good evening, John. Drugs. I live at 40 Kearny Street, west of the proposed rezoning, and I thank you for listening. I was first involved in the community outreach for this eight years ago, a process that had its ups and downs. Citizens from all over the area packed places and could get a seat. The community weighed in at that time and they were less than satisfied. I will say that I asked Mr. Force what what happened to this? Because this is what the community thought they were getting after the process that went on for over a year and several meetings and there was tons of participation. And nobody's here now. Who is involved for the most part. And I think that's because they were worn down because they didn't they didn't see this after the Air Force wasn't involved anymore. The Air Force required that the community get together and weigh in. And we did. And Marty, I don't know where I don't know where we went with this.
Speaker 0: Can you address.
Speaker 1: I want to I want to stress that like people have said, we we have no quarrel with nor do members of the community have any quarrel with a mixture of land uses this location. That's why some of these sketches that were made reflected what was going to be what was going to happen. It was not five storey urban core. Marcus. Describe this perfectly that. We have. Ah, they have proposed to have an urban center. That's what the zoning is. Urban center land in this area, in a suburban area. Just a month ago, rezoning for the Crest Moore Project was approved. It was a suburban context. This Lowry's across the street. The thing is, that boulevard one is not Lowry. It is not. Lowry. It was. Lowry was conceived when the base closed. And then all of a sudden we had a closed finance center. And we had a Lowry Town Center that was where the density was confined to. That's where the original buildings were. It made perfect sense. Now we no longer will have a town center. What we have is activity moving out of the town center onto this 70 acres. I just. I hope for the best for Lowry as a result of this. Please deny it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our final speaker is Kevin Yoshida.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Kevin Yoshida.
Speaker 8: I'm an architect and consultant to the Library Redevelopment Authority. I'm also.
Speaker 7: An architect that serves on the Larry Lowry Design.
Speaker 1: Review Committee. And just wanted to make a few points about continuity, the foundations of what you approve here tonight. The LRA has always been great stewards.
Speaker 7: Of those conversations and maintained design consultants that that work with the decisions made here through the design review process, through the design guidelines and apply best practices throughout all the execution of the rest of the project. I'm here obviously in favor of the rezoning and just want to thank you and and express my appreciation for your leadership in responsible growth in the city and to balance those conversations that voice concern and fear in favor of the active, vibrant city that is envisioned by many of its residents and this body. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Madam President, I was hoping that someone could and probably the staff, but perhaps the the Redevelopment Authority explained to me more about the waivers. So, for example, pieces of our code in some some zone districts include step backs, you know, to protect the street edge. And I was just curious if you could say more about the origination of the waivers, and is that because it's an entire building that's height is limited versus versus just the first few floors in terms of the.
Speaker 0: The waivers are proposed on First Avenue and put back in those specific areas. There is a legal description for those areas and there are 30 feet wide. So from the property line, back 30 feet, the height will be 45 feet and three stories. So that could be a building that could be a portion of a building, but the height will be 45 feet. And three stories for those portions. And I don't know if is that getting you.
Speaker 6: Described what the waiver is. I wanted to understand better its origins and why it's necessary as compared to what what the edge of the buildings are required to be under the zone district on itself. Like are there step backs in the zone district that would have applied so. So if someone can just help me understand the origin and, and evolution.
Speaker 0: You can talk about the origin and health and the condition. Would you like? Mr..
Speaker 6: Yes, that would be great.
Speaker 0: My understanding is the origin was the GDP. Okay. Through that public process.
Speaker 6: I would like to hear from the development authority. That would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 8: As we were developing the heights on Boulevard One, the original plans called for taller buildings. And we have now, in fact, at one point there were 12 storeys and they went to eight and then went to five. But then trying to respect the edges adjacent to neighborhoods, we said, let's limit further. Two, three stories in the way we did. That is by doing a step down from the five stories to the three stories on the edge. Is that.
Speaker 6: Right? So so was it a result of process or. Yes. It wasn't the original proposal.
Speaker 8: It wasn't in the original proposal.
Speaker 6: Okay. So it was the result of a process? Yes. And then my second question, Madam President, if I may, is also for the Redevelopment Authority. We had some speakers ask about why 18 acres for only 400 units of apartments. But I wanted to ask you that that question. Why is 18 acres necessary? And is it just apartments that are going in this area?
Speaker 8: No, we need 18 acres. Again, the entire 18 acres will not be five stories, but we can't today tell you exactly where a five storey building will be versus a three storey building. And it is mixed use. It is not just apartments, it is commercial as well. Retail primarily. There might be some office, but primarily the retail. We have a limitation on apartments of 450. In our plan, the a portion of the site is already set aside for what's called the Buckley Annex Housing Consortium, which is building affordable rentals. That is not on this parcel, which is 80 units. So the most you could have in apartments on this site would be 370 if we put all of the apartments on the site. But basically we need the flexibility to create the different buildings and the forms in accordance with the code, but not having necessarily the entirety. The site is five stories.
Speaker 6: Great things. And my last question, I was just looking at the image on page seven. I don't have it's hard to go back to the presentation. I think the GDP picture was in there. But is is the rebuilding of a street grid part of this overall site in terms of internal transportation? Yes. For dealing north and south.
Speaker 8: Right. There's there's it's limited in what we can do because the grid on the outside of the site is limited on the south side. In fact, there's there's no ability to connect to the south side. But to the north side, we have connected at every opportunity where there's an existing street as well to the east and west
Speaker 6: . Great. Thank you, Madam President. Those are my questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman finished.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 6: Just a quick follow up on the height issue and money. I think you're probably the person to address it in the points that you made. Sort of summing up how this matches the law revision. You said that the 65 feet was or 4 to 5 stories was similar to the rest of Lowery. However, we're hearing and testimony tonight that that's not the case. Can you expand a little bit on that? Are there. I did hear Marcus say there were CMCs eight for the hangar. But, you know, where is there other comparable height on Mallory?
Speaker 8: The the heights of six is six feet in the design guidelines for legacy Lowery. And at the time we were going through that process, the architects and consultants that we had working with us said five additional feet, 60 to 65 would accommodate a lot of different building forms that were being precluded from 60 feet, which was previously . So we put together a proposal in the redevelopment plan, and then following in the GDP, we said 65 feet. The new code wasn't even in place at the time. We came up with 65 feet. But to honor the 65 feet that we said we would not go beyond is why we asked for the waiver from 70 to 65. There are buildings directly across the street, one office building that's 63 feet. I believe that's directly across the street. There are buildings off site of Lowry, the Lex, an apartment building, seven story buildings. I'm not sure what their height is, but it's probably in the 70 foot range.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. That was that was very thorough. Madam President, I'd like to explore a little bit what constitutes a city plan. And don't go so far, Monty. You might be the right person, though. I bet there are a lot of people in the room who can answer this. Remind me how the LRA board is appointed. As I recall, the mayor appoints the members and council confirms them. Am I correct? Okay. You probably want to go back to the mic and. And how is the CAC chosen? Is it still in existence? I was familiar with it when I worked in District five.
Speaker 8: Yes, it's still in existence and is also mayoral appointees both by the city of Denver and Aurora.
Speaker 6: And both groups were involved in the Berkeley Annex redevelopment plan, which was the basis of the GDP. Yes. Okay. And then if I could ask the city attorney, maybe, Karen, analysts, in terms of our responsibilities in determining determining conformance to city plans, how how should we be interpreting that? Because we've heard varying testimony today legally.
Speaker 9: Karen Harvey Velis with the city attorney's office legally adopted plans includes not only the comprehensive plan blueprint, Denver, the transportation plan, but also plans adopted by various agencies. And this case, it also includes a general development plan which was enabled by the own zoning code and approved by the planning board.
Speaker 8: So all of those are plans adopted by the city.
Speaker 6: And as I recall, through city ordinance zoning and even prior to that it was city council while I served on it that gave the planning board the ability to approve general development plans.
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 9: The planning board in a lot of instances now and then before that, the DRC had the approval of city council or had the authority from city council to adopt general development plans.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Rob. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Madam President. Actually, my Colfax sister.
Speaker 10: Just answered or asked my question around.
Speaker 12: The GDP. So thank you, Karen, for answering that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman, followed by Councilman Fox.
Speaker 5: I would I don't I'm not sure anybody here can answer my question. But my question is, I would like to know from public works how the city will deal with the impact of the increasing traffic as a result of this development. Hi. Angelica Casey is with Denver Public Works and the developer has worked with our traffic engineering division. We did.
Speaker 6: We completed an analysis and.
Speaker 4: Study.
Speaker 5: And found that there would be additional trips added to this area, but it would not be anything that.
Speaker 4: The current configuration wouldn't be able to handle.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lehman was your. That's answered. Thank you. Councilman Fats, followed by Councilman Brown.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I need a refresher course, and I don't. Of the developer, Theresa would be the one to give it to me. I need help and some of the emails that I received. There were discussions about inadequate parking, and I need to be reminded what the city minimum is and why this point there referred to a .75 why that I why I should look upon that as good.
Speaker 8: There was concerns about the new zoning code and the ratios of parking being too low for this location. And we at one point had actually put waivers in the zoning application to raise the parking ratios in this zoning application. But the planning department didn't feel it was appropriate type of waiver in this case. So what we did as the developer is incorporate parking standards into our design guidelines that are compatible with the previous zoning code. For instance, in apartments under the CM five, I think the ratio would be .75 per unit and our design guidelines require 1.5 spaces.
Speaker 5: If I may clarify then, Madam President, you are planning to build the 1.5?
Speaker 8: That is correct.
Speaker 5: Thank you. That's that's good news.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Potts, Councilman Brown.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 7: Monte questioned the number 30 speaker next to the last speaker, turned to you and said that this is not Larry. He's an opponent. And then another opponent held up this rendering, this seven year old rendering, saying that this. Was, I presume, what it was supposed to look like. So we have to the opponents are kind of confusing their message tonight. And can you help clarify, especially the one that turned to you and said that this side is not?
Speaker 8: Larry, I don't I don't have the image that you're referring to. So if you could see it. But this is still what we were planning. This is an image from our redevelopment plan on the community park area, which indeed is still the plan and vision that we have for this site.
Speaker 7: Okay. And how about the charge that this is not Lowry that decided it's Lowry?
Speaker 8: I mean, I don't know how else to respond. As I started my comments tonight, we have comparable density to other areas of. Lowry We have comparable and it's the same parking ratios. The traffic generated on this site is the same traffic that would been generated on the site when it was the DFS Center and had 3000 employees on the site. It has comparable heights in the town center area. We have 60 foot tall buildings and we're seeing 65 foot buildings here, not the entirety of the site. We ratchet down the heights of the buildings on the perimeter adjacent to neighborhoods that are either single family detached or attached. So I would say it is Lowry is a continuation of what we started at Lowry and intend to finish.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brown, Councilman Kennish.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilman Brown reminded me of a question I forgot to ask, which was about the density. You know, there is this mention of 11 per acre and but I guess the question is, is that for the entire Buckley Annex site, it's an average. It's not that no single acre will exceed 11. So can you clarify what that how how much of the site that applies to you and whether it applies to every single spot in the site or whether it is an average.
Speaker 8: It's an average of the entirety of 800 units on the entirety of the site. So obviously there will be parcels that have higher density than 11. But we also are already building single family detached homes that have much lower density than 11.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any more questions from members of council? CNN. The public hearing for council bill 345 is closed. Comments by members of council. Hill from assessment.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my council fellow council people for all the good questions that you asked. I thought they were right on point and glad to clear up a lot of things. And I this was a little bit of a trip back in time because I started working on Lowry two years before the Lowry Redevelopment Authority was formed. I, too, started when Pat Schroeder was in office. And I want to thank my cohorts, Mary Nell Wolf and Kathleen Ruby and Brian Wert, as a speaker mentioned that people were gone because they were tired of it. These people have never gotten tired of it because they are still working very hard to make sure that the this development is is something that we can be proud of. When I when we were first working on the Lowry base conversion in the nineties, we it was a very scary thing. And I think that was that was well said by I think it was Kathleen that said that it was very scary. And there were folks who said, we don't want anything here, and there's going to be a lot of traffic and let's put a fence up and just make a park out of it. But we had there was a concept working its way through a city planning literature called New Urbanism. We didn't know what that was, but it was New Urbanism, but sort of a new old urbanism that recommended that we once again develop embedded commercial areas in our residential zones like our original cities. Had Denver had them and has them dotted all over our residential areas, although many went away in the fifties and two seventies when there was an idea to completely separate residential areas from commercial areas. But you are very familiar with the ones remaining the South Pearl Street, South Gaylord Street, 22nd and Kearny. And there's one just up just a block from me in Hilltop. And now we know that having those amenities among in a residential area is good for us. It produces opportunities for not only people to walk some of the time and maybe not use their cars so much. But even more importantly, it creates a sense of community. It is a way for people to keep eyes on the street, to meet each other on their way to and fro, and to create community when they are there. And it was a tough it was a tough sell at the time. And thankfully, we had great city planners at the time. But we see how it is worked and how Lowry has become one of the most favorite places of the people in Denver and certainly the people who did move there. Two weeks ago, I voted against the building of a multi-unit structure just in Chris Chris Moore Park. That's because I thought it didn't fit there. I still don't think it fits there. But more importantly, the neighborhood had been designated as an area of stability. As described in Blueprint, Denver zoning rules went through a very public process, and I felt there was an interpretation that made me feel like we should remain faithful to that public process that created the zoning rules in the first place. I am going to ask my fellow council people to vote for this rezoning tonight, because this zoning is in an area of change. And so my point of view is still consistent with the notion that this is what a public process that created the zoning that we have says. And this is an area of change. I think it was well demonstrated that they've had 61 rezonings in the last 15 years. And so obviously it's an area of change. And we also had someone say that we should maybe delay this for two more weeks or so. You heard that the plan began in 2007, and that's eight years ago. And there are people on this council who were part of that process, and there are citizens that were part of that process and have been a part of that process. And I think eight years is plenty long of a time to come to some conclusion about some zoning. And I don't know what two more weeks would do. Also that there are many council people here. I did like Councilwoman Foster's notion that Councilwoman Ortega was here at the at the beginning and Councilman Brown was here at the beginning. And so and I can't remember it was Councilwoman Fox, perhaps two people who have grown grown up with this project and know a lot about it and know a lot about the feeling about it. I think the plan is very sensitive to the adjacent neighborhoods. I don't think that came out very clearly. I had considered asking a question about it, but I thought, I know the answer, so why ask the question? Park Heights is a single family neighborhood. The homes that are going to go up against Park Heights are single family homes. Mayfair Park is single family home, neighborhood. The heart, the buildings that are going to go up against Mayfair Park are single family homes. On Quebec. There is a town center across the street and some office buildings. It's true. Down south there's a few single family homes. They're much farther back. They're putting the town center on the area that is across from the town center and across from some office buildings. And on the Crest Moore side, which has a park and then single family homes, they're putting single family homes. And the the higher, more dense areas are in the middle. Someone suggested that they're going to put five storey homes all along, a five storey building saw along Quebec. The waivers create three storey buildings along Quebec. It's very important that people get the right information. I've been a little distressed with some of the wrong information that has been going around. So those are just some of my thoughts about this project. I'm thinking this will be the last zoning of Lowry and because I don't think we have any more property left at Lowry to rezone. And I urge my fellow council people to vote for this rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Madam President, I was thinking that maybe I could just be quiet tonight and listen. And I will say that Councilwoman Sussman made a very good case, but we were somewhat challenged, I believe, by testimony, to consider this in a quasi judicial way. So I want to go on record saying that I believe there are changing conditions in this rezoning. In an area of change, a major employer left the area and further that major employer generated as many traffic trips. If I understood the staff report as the new development, will I see this as consistent with the Lowrey vision, with the comp plan, with Blueprint Denver? It indeed is not like a rezoning we heard a few weeks ago. I had some question about the height I thought I'd go to. I got a fair answer again in terms of the plan. The illustration that that was presented that morning force looked at it. Councilman Brown's request shows five stories, it looks.
Speaker 0: Like to be along the.
Speaker 6: Park in three stories along Quebec. And it looks like the crescent in Bath, England, to me, with the building sort of right around the park. So that's my quasi judicial thinking on it, in the way I'm going to be making my decision in supporting this. But I would also like to take a little privilege as the representative for Cherry Creek.
Speaker 4: To say that this.
Speaker 6: Is not Cherry Creek. You are talking about 800 units on 70, 70 acres. We haven't had a rezoning in the numerous controversial rezonings I've had in front of this council in Cherry Creek on more than an acre. And you add them all up and you might get eight acres, and that's an exaggeration. So I did not find that a persuasive argument. I agreed with Rachel Neumann and Jamie Fogel on that one. And by the way, let me in my remarks it say in that same list of top five Denver neighborhoods and 50 to 80, Cherry Creek was number three. So if we do this rezoning, maybe Lowry can stay at number five.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. First, I want to thank all of the residents, neighbors for coming out tonight and for all of the letters and emails that we've received on this issue. One of the things that that I struggle with is the fact that we we have some developments that have come forward that include the waivers, yet others that have come before us, where they're they tell us we were discouraged or not allowed to include waivers. So to know tonight that we had waivers on the height, but not waivers on the parking. I don't understand that thinking of our planning department in, you know, picking and choosing when and who and where these waivers get to be included. And that makes it confusing for everybody. I think for the developers, it makes it confusing for the neighbors who are trying to ensure that the right kinds of things are, in fact, included in a zone change. So that's that's frustrating. I'm just expressing that frustration with the process. So we had eight people opposed that spoke tonight and 23 who spoke in favor. This is drastically different than the kind of feedback we got from the application we saw two weeks ago. I think this project is going to be an asset to this location. I think it will absolutely fill in a vacant site that, as everybody has indicated, is an area of change. And I appreciate the sensitivity that the Lowry Redevelopment Authority played in, you know, buffering the edges and reducing the height to make it more compatible with the adjacent areas that they, you know, buffer up next to. And I think this is going to be an overall good project for this location. So I will be supporting it tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. There was a comment about the appropriateness of relying on the GDP. Just a question about how it fit in. I want to make it clear, as I state my preference, that no one plan was one that I relied on. The whole process, including the testimony tonight, was what I based my decision on. And the answer about the parking was very important to me. And so if there is a question that was alluded that that could be a legal question. I am not basing my vote on that. You all brought me the facts that I'm basing my vote on tonight, and I will be supporting it.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 4: SUSSMAN Hi.
Speaker 1: BROOKS Hi. BROWN Hi.
Speaker 0: Fats.
Speaker 3: I carnage. Layman. Lopez Never. I. Ortega, I rob. I shepherd. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 4: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 345 has passed. Councilman Lopez, will you please please counsel Bill 346 on the floor.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 346 series of 2015 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: I need a second. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 346 is open. May we have a staff report? Tourism. Sara With Community Planning and development, just getting the PowerPoint loaded. So this application is located at 301 South Cherokee.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located at 99 Quebec Street from O-1 to C-MX-5 in Council District 5. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) zones property located at 99 Quebec Street from O-1 to C-MX-5 in Council District 5. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-20-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06292015_15-0346
|
Speaker 0: I need a second. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 346 is open. May we have a staff report? Tourism. Sara With Community Planning and development, just getting the PowerPoint loaded. So this application is located at 301 South Cherokee. The proposal is to rezone the property from IP you oh two and CMA 1602 to PWD you 002 property is located in southwest Denver in the Baker Neighborhood Council District seven, near the directly adjacent to the Alameda station and the Broadway market place two blocks west of Broadway, two blocks east of I-25 and the Platte River. The property is 19,000 square feet or nearly half an acre. There is an existing general manufacturing use on the property. Councilman Nevitt is requesting rezoning of this property to restore the land used to conformity and to allow the business to expand. So again, the proposal is to rezone from IP you oh two and connect 16 year old to two PUD. You are to the scenic 16 zone district is the base zone district. These days when we do parties, we base the beauty on an existing zone district. So the Cinemark 16 is that district. The beauty changes that we make would add the manufacturing fabrication and assembly land use to the allowed land uses in the Puti would alter some building form standards on Alameda Avenue, a build to and it would change the build to from zero to 15 to 0 220 to accommodate the existing building and allows some existing parking to continue there. So we already talked a little bit in the last application about the urban center context. It is that mixed use, slightly denser area where we are seeing multi-unit, commercial and in this case industrial land uses. In this case the mixture is sort of horizontal rather than vertical. We've got a couple of five storey buildings on either side of this property that are responding to the TOD. But we have also area plans that say we want to hold on to this use. So it is truly a diverse mixed use area. So again, the current zoning is Cmmc 16 0202 is an overlay that allows billboards. This is part of the Denver Design District General Development Plan. There is a view plane from Washington Park that would limit heights here to actually about 6 to 7 storeys. There are four existing 1 to 2 storey structures on the property surrounding zoning. See them x five and see well see them x 16 in the Broadway marketplace industrial to the west along the railroad tracks, the x five is a five story residential property I was talking about a little earlier. Just to the south. In the CMC, 16 is another five story residential property under construction directly adjacent to the to the transit center. The land use isn't industrial, it's an existing business. Again, we're adjacent to the Alameda station, we're adjacent to Broadway Market Place and to TOD Multifamily. These are the photos of the area. The top right is alameda avenue on the north side. The red arrow is the buildings themselves. The bottom on the right is the Kmart. Across the street, the light rail station bottom left. The middle left is the five story residential to the south of the property. The top left is the five story residential directly across Alameda. This was seen at planning board a public hearing on May 6th at NAP committee on May 20th. And of course, today, the all of these public hearings were duly, duly notified by electronic notification and for planning board. And this hearing signs posted on the property the RINO's notified were the baker, his neighborhood association, Santa Fe Drive Redevelopment Corporation in her neighborhood cooperation. Denver urban resident. The Association and Denver Neighborhood Association. There have been no letters or public comments on this proposed rezoning. So the criteria, consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances. Consistency with neighborhood context. And then there are some pretty review criteria. The relevant plans are a comprehensive plan. 2000 Blueprint Denver, the Baker Neighborhood Plan, the Alameda Station Area Plan, and the Denver Design District General Development Plan. All of this is is summarized in your staff report. I don't want to get into specific standards or every single one of these plans says hold on to this industrial. We are with this party trying to do two things, which is why it ended up a party. We're trying to encourage tod development in this site that's directly adjacent to a TOD station, but also to hold on to existing employment and an existing business that are city policies in our plans tell us we want to hold on to. So that's what all of these plans are saying. Redevelop high density housing. But a hold on to that employment center. The station area plan calls for it to be employment. The GDP says existing industrial. We're holding on to that in this area of this sub area of the GDP. So staff believes this proposal is consistent with the adopted plans that by basing our Pudi on an existing zone district, we are not affecting the uniformity of district regulations as the majority of the standards will be c IMX 16 standards. And that by planning this rezoning, according to our adopted plans, we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances on this one is also changed conditions. We are trying to accommodate the change at the transit oriented development, but also hold on to an existing land use. So we do believe that the changed conditions has been met. We did talk a little earlier about the neighborhood context, the urban center neighborhood context that we believe this this area meets and the zone district purpose and intent. The main pretty criteria that staff looks at is unique and extraordinary circumstances. We believe that this is a unique circumstance where we are trying to accommodate the TOD as well as an existing industrial development. So we believe the PD criteria are met and with that, staff recommends approval. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Lucero. Madam Secretary, how many speakers do we have signed up this evening? None. We have no speakers. So let's go to questions from members of council. First up is Councilman Ortega, followed by Councilman Kennish. Thank you, Madam President. I'm just trying to understand. So this is an existing operating business that's been there for how long? Over 35 years. Okay. So as zoning got changed in 2010, it's been a consistently operating business. So has been they they're grandfathered in. But under the CMA zoning, it didn't factor in that they became non-conforming. And the business license to expand, they can't expand. That's exactly right. There should be some other way than having to go through a whole rezoning process. But I appreciate the fact that Councilman Nevitt is the applicant as opposed to making the owner be the applicant for this. So I appreciate that. I was just trying to understand what do they manufacture their pharmaceuticals? Okay. All right. Thank you. Clearly, this is not an incompatible industrial use with residential. So one of the things that I didn't say that I maybe should say is the definition of this general manufacturing land use is that it doesn't require toxic, hazardous or explosive materials or produce them. So it is an operation that has little noise, odor, vibration, glare, pollution and therefore minimal impact on surrounding properties. That's the definition of general manufacturing and the zoning code. Okay. Thank you, Theresa Hilton. In fact, I'm sorry, Councilman Kinney.
Speaker 1: There often.
Speaker 6: You know, we're on the mind of. Thank you, Madam President. Just one quick question. Why not? I am ex zoning.
Speaker 0: We started at IMX, but the IMX didn't really accommodate the Todd next door, so we sort of found ourselves.
Speaker 6: Just one observation. I don't think we got the IMX zoning right. We generally it hasn't benefit for almost any manufacturer. It's limited some of the types of manufacturing that I think truthfully are compatible. And so we may we need to look at that further because we continue to not use it for use. Is that it by name, industrial mixed use should be appropriate for us. So I think we need to work on that a little more. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions from members of council? See? None. The public hearing for counsel Bill 46 is closed. Comments by members of Council Health Benefit.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. As the Lord giveth so the Lord taketh away. You do have me to thank for the fact that we have a third public hearing tonight after the long public hearing. But you also have me to thank for the fact that there is not one single person here to testify. So I want to get some credit for that. Indeed, Councilwoman Ortega put her finger right on it. What we're doing here is really correcting an error of enthusiasm. Back in 2008, 2009, we did a station area plan and in conjunction with a general development plan there, there's a big landowner here that owns the vast bulk of Broadway marketplace. And we got very excited about the future of this site and wanting to, in the 2010 zoning code update, the new zoning code set the table for our station area plans. And so when we set the table for this area, we set it with CMCs 16. The only problem was that in the back and forth of the writing of the different C-Max districts, the s m district manufacturing isn't allowed. Use the e m x. The manufacturing isn't allowed. Use the U.S. manufacturing allowed used not in the CMCs. And so we inadvertently zoned to a non-conforming use this pharmaceutical manufacturer. That would all be okay if they didn't want to make some changes to their building. And so they find themselves in a in a, in a pinch that was not of their own making. And so we're correcting it here. We're still leaving the table set for the ambitions that we have for this site, but we're allowing this high quality manufacturing good employer to remain there and do what they need to do to. Be successful for as long as they can be there. So. Thanks very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Levitt, Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 12: Yeah. Just 2 seconds, Madam President. Just want to thank Councilman Nevitt for his problem solving ability in getting this done. And, you know, I want to say to this council who's been receiving a lot of criticism in the media and even tonight that none of you are lame and none of your ducks.
Speaker 1: I am very grateful to.
Speaker 12: Be serving with you. And thank you.
Speaker 1: For your incredible hard work on this council. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Oh, thank you. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call, please, on council. Bill three, 4 seconds.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Shepard.
Speaker 4: Oh, I just said. Oh, I.
Speaker 0: Just saw you. I'm sorry. Thank you.
Speaker 4: WOMAN Brooks. Thank you so much. I know council president pro tem just said it, but I wanted to say to thank you.
Speaker 0: Oh, God. Are you back in the queue?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just. I just want to ask one question of Kelly Valez, and that is whether this was the shortest rezoning in history.
Speaker 3: Pretty sure. Yeah.
Speaker 13: Man.
Speaker 1: Guy looks skeptical. It won't be if you keep talking.
Speaker 0: All right. Are we ready to vote?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 346.
Speaker 3: NEVITT Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Brooks Brown. I forgot. I can reach Lehman. Hi, Lopez.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes. We have.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. Council Bill 346 has passed. On Monday, July 27th, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 385, changing the zoning classification for 3540 East 31st Avenue. Any protests against Council Bill 385 must be filed with the council offices no later than Monday, July 20th. See no other business before this body? This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 10: Denver eight. On TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 4: You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.
Speaker 0: That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from.
Speaker 4: Members of council?
Speaker 0: Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I would like to ask Colonel Dalton to come back to the microphone, please. Got a couple of questions for you. In my perusing of the document. I didn't see anything that deals with the. The whether there was discussion about. Continuing to do the general development plans the way they're being done now in in a wanted clarification on whether or not there's a size of a project that requires a general development plan. So can you can you speak to that?
Speaker 12: Sure. Yeah. So this text the moment does not propose any changes to the current general development plan rules. As I mentioned, the process.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located at 301 South Cherokee Street from I-B/UO-2 and C-MX-16/UO-2 to PUD/OU-2 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 301 South Cherokee Street from I-B/UO-2 and C-MX-16/UO-2 to PUD/OU-2 in Council District 7. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-20-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06222015_15-0384
|
Speaker 5: With pleasure, Mr. President. Designating the week of June 22nd through June 26th as Bike Week and Wednesday, June 24th, as a bike to work day in Denver. Whereas the city and county of Denver partners with the Regional Denver Regional Council of Governments, local bicycling organizations and cycling enthusiasts each year to plan activities and events intended to promote awareness of the benefits of cycling. And. Whereas, Bike to Work Day is an annual event designed to encourage people to ride their bicycles for transportation on a consistent basis to reduce congestion, improve air quality, and benefit public health. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works hosts the Civic Center Park Breakfast Station, one of the largest in the region where cyclists celebrate their commute to work with free snacks, raffle prizes, music and educational outreach offered by organizations in the region. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works is a major contributor in the planning and implementation of Denver's bicycle infrastructure, implementing at least 15 miles of new bikeways annually, and this year installing two protected bikeways on Arapahoe and Lawrence Streets downtown, with vertical separation between bikes and cars, and whose plans to install more protected bike lanes are contributing to Denver's designation as a top bicycling city and its inclusion in the People for Bikes Green Lane Project, which provides technical assistance in the installation of bike lanes. And. Whereas, the city now has more than 140 miles of on street bike lanes and SROs and more than a hundred miles of off street trails, offering recreational opportunities along the scenic routes and is in the process of constructing the 35th 36th Street Bridge and important pedestrian and bicycle connections from the new RTD East Line and will begin work on the Brighton Boulevard bicycle facility in late 2015. And. Whereas, Denver is supporting bicycling in other new and creative ways, offering on street bike corrals and bike sharing stations in places where people gather with the goal of supporting local businesses and making bike riding an attractive way to get around for more of Denver's residents. And. Whereas, bicycle and pedestrian safety and infrastructure continues to be a top priority for the Denver City Council of the City and County of Denver, which is supporting funding for additional and expedited multimodal improvements that will increase bicycling in our city. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City Council, the city and County of Denver, Section one, that the council designates the week June 22nd through June 26th as Bike Week and June 24th as Bike to Work Day and encourages citizens to keep their heads up and watch out for one another and stay safe this summer, no matter your mode of travel and section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest, and to fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy hereof be forwarded to the manager of Public Works.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: I move that proclamation 384 series of 2015 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. It is my pleasure. I think for the third or fourth year in a row now to read this proclamation celebrating not just bike to Work Day, but Bike Week and all of the wonderful progress that our city has made in becoming a truly bike friendly city. I really want to thank all my colleagues for that, for consistently making the investment of the city in bicycling infrastructure one of our top priorities in every single budget retreat that we've had for the last three years in a row. And I'd really like to thank the mayor for continuing to increase the amount of money that he puts in the budget annually to meet many of the goals that we've laid out and of course, our public works. Department for, you know, carrying that banner and working hard to make these things happened. And I remember when we opened up the 15th Street Bikeway, you know, that was like a wow revolutionary big deal. But, you know, it's doing what it was supposed to do. It's giving people a safe space to ride down a very busy east west corridor in downtown that has a lot of bike, a car and bus traffic on it. I actually ride down 15th Street probably twice a week on that bike lane, and I can attest to the fact that those improvements that we've made in the street, you know, really helped me feel more comfortable as I'm riding down. So, you know, I think we're doing a great job. I think we have a long way to go because we were recently designated as a a gold city in our bikes in across the United States. But we really want to be a platinum city. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, there's only one in the country. So we really want to aspire to get even more of our residents out of their cars and onto their bikes. Let me just tell you, when I bike to work in the morning, I get to come down Confluence Park and ride up the trails underneath our street grid. And I arrive and I feel so relaxed and distressed because I didn't have any traffic jams, I didn't have any crazy drivers. It's there's so many benefits to it other than just being a convenient way to get from point A to point B. So I just want to say that it's important that folks think about biking to work not just one day a week, but perhaps every day or at least once or more a week, and make that commitment and see how it changes your life. I've been doing it for like about the last month this year, and it's really been actually a lot of fun. So with that, I'm happy to to sponsor this proclamation and I don't know if anyone else has comments as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I think, Councilwoman Sheperd, for bringing this proclamation forward. I remember probably about three or four years ago did my first bike to work, and I showed up in a bunch of kind of biking gear minus the tight shorts. But, you know, the Colorado Denver biking gear wasn't in my normal go to work type of gear. And and I just thought, you know, it's just a fun little exercise that we do as a city. When someone from Bike Denver told me, no, the point is that you actually use it as your transportation to work. So come next time in a suit. And I really didn't understand nor get nor see kind of biking in the overall multimodal system within our city and county of Denver. Until I went on a trip with people for bikes and a couple of folks from the city and to Copenhagen and really begin to understand how this system could work. And then we went to other cities as well. And so, you know, I think it's important that we do the the bike to work day, but I hope that it helps all of us in the city and county of Denver think about multimodal options and mode share quite differently than we had in the past. That right now in the city and county of Denver, 80% of our mode share is around cars. And I think one of the most important and most issues that I hear from every neighborhood is the issue of congestion and traffic. And so I think it's important, number one, that we as a city have a vision and get serious about our investment and implementation and to multi-modal not just bikes, but pedestrians, making sure we have transit opportunities and things like that. And so, you know, we can't just encourage bikes. We have to kind of put our money where our mouth is, like Councilwoman Cheryl was saying, and dedicate funds each year to increase protected bike lanes. And we know that if we have protected bike lanes, 60% of the people in this city who do not ride bikes will simply because they're safe, comfortable, and they're connected to the places that they want to go. So I'm really excited for this. Thank you. Councilwoman Schipper and I will be supporting this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Moran.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President Herndon. Right before I came over here, I actually saw an email from Transportation.
Speaker 7: Solutions, which is a.
Speaker 4: Transportation management.
Speaker 7: Association.
Speaker 4: Whose board I serve on, as have Councilman Brown and Councilwoman Sussman and.
Speaker 7: Councilman Nevitt and the whole.
Speaker 4: Ideas to get people out of the single occupancy vehicles, cars. I mean.
Speaker 8: Your bicycle might be single occupancy.
Speaker 4: But at any rate, I'm not the confident cyclist that many of my colleagues are. And so what interested me in this announcement is that Triple A, the Automobile Association, is going to be offering complimentary roadside assistance on Bike to Work Day, and that I thought was pretty great and shows how we're changing the number.
Speaker 9: And this is a paid political advertisement.
Speaker 4: The number is one 800 a help.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I would want to say that slowly, but also kind of quickly. We've been building on shifting the mindset in the city and county of Denver in terms of people looking at riding their bikes to work. And I was one of those people because I was always a little tentative, as Councilman Brooks was saying, about what to wear. And so, you know, how do you come to a community meeting? You're all sweaty from riding your bicycle and everything. But all kidding aside, I began to look at utilizing my bicycle when I lived in the Central Valley, and I was very close to the South Platte River and the Cherry Creek, and I would just get on my bike and ride all the way into the city and county building. Part of that also is that, you know, there's a lot of conversation about utilizing the street grid in terms of protected bike lanes and getting to work. And that's all important. But I also just want to bring up to many people that bicycle that we have another grid and that's on the South Platte. On the Platte and also Cherry Creek. And you will see many people utilizing that as transportation as they're making their way through the city of Denver and possibly even to work. So I just wanted to bring out that in my mind, there's two grids, there's a regular street level, and then there is a river path. And so we also have that option as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I you know, Councilman Brooks, it's cool to wear your suit riding your bike. And when you when you're coming from the east side where everything's nice and flat, but when you're coming from the west side, where there's nothing but hills and bar, no still no bike lanes in a lot of areas, no safe crossings. It's really hard. And I tried it. I've tried coming down here, I'm not so bad downhill. But going back, let's just say you got to you got to take your suit to the dry cleaners almost every time you ride your bike. So having said that, I think it's important that, you know, we recognize Bike to work day and that we all participate, but we also pay attention when we when we are coming downtown and we are biking down here, biking wherever we need to go, we got to pay attention, know areas that we need to improve, areas that we need to have, bike lanes where it makes sense. Places like Colfax, instead of having to go all the way down into the gulch and on the way back home, in the dark and in pure obscurity, you know, places where it makes sense, places where it makes sense to put down striping. And I think it's important that we take note of that when we when we do bike places where it makes sense to cross. Right. And it's upon us and it's incumbent upon us as a city to make sure we recognize those intersections and not just give the priority to cars right away at those intersections that we may stumble across like Federal Boulevard and 10th Avenue, or like the Colfax Di Viaduct, which is beyond me why we have not thought of making Colfax bike friendly and more pedestrian friendly instead of having to go under and around it and through the. Through the crevices of the city and maybe over our bridge some day. So we have to put our thinking caps on. Yes, it's awesome to participate in, but we have to make sure that we're identifying gaps and we are marking certain places and certain intersections where it should be bike friendly and taking that to committee. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any comments? Proclamation three 8413 nine. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Edward Susman.
Speaker 4: Brooks Brown I fats I can eat lemon lopez monteiro, i. But I'm sorry. Nevett.
Speaker 0: You sure? Okay.
Speaker 4: Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Catherine Levitt, are you sure? I thank you. All right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 3939 is three. 84 has been adopted. Councilwoman Sheppard, is there someone you like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 5: I would like to invite several members of the Public Works Department to the podium. Please introduce yourselves. Council. President Members of council. My name is Emily Snyder, and I'm the urban mobility manager with Denver Public Works. I'm going to make my part brief as many of you are transitioning off council and this is Bike Week. I just wanted to say thank you very much to this council for all of their support over the past years, for bicycling and walking in this city and for making it a priority, as you have done. And with that, I'm also transitioning the acceptance of this proclamation over to my colleague Rachel Bronson. Thank you, Emily, and thank you. Council President and members of Denver City Council. Emily has passed the torch. It's pretty exciting. As a recently designated bicycle friendly business and community in the city and county of Denver is proud to celebrate Bike to Work Day. We will be celebrating, as Councilwoman Shepherd said at Civic Center Park with our annual breakfast station. We'll be celebrating, along with dozens of Denver businesses and vendors and thousands of bicyclists from across the community. Our Bike to Work Day celebration at Civic Center Park would not be possible without our many partner agencies, including Denver Parks, Parks and recreation facilities, public works, solid waste, public works, communications and public works right away. Services. Currently across the city. In terms of staff, we're competing in a bag to work day business challenge. We have 325 staff across the city that are registered and the leading agencies in this competition who will all be eligible for prizes. Are the Library Technology Services, Environmental, Health and Parks and Recreation. Back to work day, bike to work week and Bike Month would not be possible without our many partners in the community, including Dr. COG, CDOT, Spike, Denver, Bicycle, Denver's many transportation management associations and many others. So thank you all for recognizing this very important day and for your leadership in making Denver a world class bicycling city.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd, for that. We have one more proclamation in Proclamation 427 sponsored by Councilman Brown. Will you please read Proclamation 47?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating the week of June 22 through June 26 as “Bike Week” and Wednesday, June 24, as “Bike to Work Day” in Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06222015_15-0402
|
Speaker 0: I don't want to recount all the virtues of this historic move forward together with our brothers and sisters in in Adams County. But I do want to recognize and acknowledge and thank for being in the room. Two commissioners from Adams County, the esteemed chairs, Tedesco and Steve O'Driscoll, waved to the watching public all for people who are watching Channel eight this evening. So appreciate you guys being here and thanks for all your hard work on this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Levitt. Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I do have a few questions for the airport team. My first question is a part of this agreement involves a $10 million payment to Adams County. And I'm trying to clarify, what benefit does Denver receive in return for the $10 million?
Speaker 0: Mr. President, members of council, my name is Evan Dreier. I am Mayor Hancock's deputy chief of staff. Councilwoman Sheppard, your question is, what benefit does the city and the airport benefit from for the $10 million? There's there's a couple. I think the the first one is the opportunity to develop a broader array of commercial development at the airport. We're talking about an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement that was first entered into in 1988. This would be the first major development, first major amendment. And there is a price to that. And that price we negotiated with our friends in Adams County at $10 million. Secondly, the pace of development and the revenue that will be derived from that that we will be sharing will be slow in order to provide some compensation to Adams County. Initially, we agreed on an initial upfront payment of $10 million. Those would be the two primary benefits.
Speaker 5: Okay. So but as I understand, revenues are to be shared 50, 50 equally. So we're paying 10 million upfront in order to agree to split revenues. 5050. Correct. At what I'm understanding. Okay. I also want to clarify what the talking about the clear the clear zone language, if I understand correctly, we have the ability Denver does to lease land in the clear zones. But then I was reading a few paragraphs down where it sounds like there will be some mitigation payments made back to Adams County. It sounds like there's some other financial consideration that we might either pay or forego that I wasn't clear on in the development agreement.
Speaker 0: I'm going to ask David Broadwell to respond to that question.
Speaker 10: Thank you. David Broadwell, Assistant city attorney. The the provisions in the agreement regarding the clear zones basically would again relieve land use restrictions on that property, which is in Adams County. It's owned by Denver and by DIA, but it's in Adams County and currently subject to a fairly severe set of land use restrictions dating from 1988. One of the things the mandatory agreement will allow us to do is, and on a limited basis, identify development parcels in that area for future development going forward. Now the original agreement had the concept that since Denver was buying up a lot of this acreage, which was going to remain fallow in public ownership in Adams County in 1988, we were taking it off their tax rolls and as a consequence of taking it off their tax rolls, a part of the original deal was that there would be something like a payment in lieu of taxes, which they use the term mitigation payment to describe that in the original deal. And frankly, even though it's hundreds of acres, it's basically open range land that generates only like 70 or $80,000 a year in mitigation payments. The last time we checked last year. So a very small sum of money flows to Adams County from that. To the extent a small amount of commercial development will probably evolve and occur over the years under the New Deal, that some of that will actually be subject to what's called now possession of interest taxation, where the Adams County jurisdictions will actually see more of a tax flow off of that property if it develops more in the future. But the mitigation payment idea dates from 1888. There are a lot of terms and conditions in the original deal that are simply being left intact and aren't being changed by the New Deal. I'll be happy to answer more specific questions about where that concept came from and what it means.
Speaker 5: How many acres are we talking about? And I'm sorry, what was that second term? The possessor, interest, taxation. How many acres are we talking about? Out of the 1500.
Speaker 10: Well, the reference the reference to 1500 acres in the agreement, his land that we're going to have freed up in Denver County on the airport property itself, the 1500 acres has nothing to do with the clear zones. The New Deal will allow the Clear Zone acreage to be kind of open in terms of whether or not any of that property is made available by Denver and DIA in the future for commercial development. Again, if, when and if we do, it'll be leased. It'll be in Adams County and potentially within the boundaries of Aurora or Commerce City as well. And there have been there's been an evolution in the law since 1988 that says when a public entity like Denver leases land for commercial development, then the value of that leasehold is subject to property taxation under a possessor interest theory. The value of that possession interest and all of our concessionaires and lessees at DIA now are subject to this kind of taxation that that whole concept evolves since 1988. And we make reference to it in the mandatory agreement that any leasing out there in the clear zones in Adams County will be subject to that kind of taxation and they'll keep that tax revenue. The taxing entities in Adams County will benefit from that. One final point is that development on the on that acreage, although it's in Adams County, it's physically on property we owned. Therefore, the DIA enterprise, the aviation enterprise will benefit from the ground lease revenue. Even Dreier indicated earlier that the back to the $10 Million question that in paying that we project substantial economic benefit to Denver both in terms of the 50% of the tax revenue will be retaining, but also in terms of the ground lease revenue the DIA will enjoy 100% will be kept by the aviation enterprise and will not be shared. So the $10 million payment needs to be viewed in relation to both. Some taxes which will flow to Denver, 100% of the lease revenue will flow to Denver.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then I have some other questions that are more on the planning side. So I know there's been a lot of conceptual planning happening about what this will look like as it moves forward. Is that information going to become public before the November ballot vote? Is that going to come to council? Like to lend news to our land use committee or neighborhood and planning committee.
Speaker 0: Might be helpful if Kim Dae or comes to the podium.
Speaker 8: I mean, yes, we have been doing a lot of looking at what potential could be developed on the property. The truth is this agreement that is in front of you hits a little reset for us because all of the planning we were doing did not include the clear zones. So we're going to be going back over the next few months, relooking at it, because we now have a different landmass to look at. And we want to look at all of our planning efforts based on this concept of 1500 acres. So, no, you probably will not see a plan prior to November 11.
Speaker 5: Okay. So towards the end of the agreement, Article 11, it talks about Denver and the HCC forming a new regional entity to promote and market development opportunities on or around the new airport and assist in coordinating land use and infrastructure planning. It gives a date of 1231 2016 for that to be completed. My big question is this is we're talking about greenfield development, and that's a tremendous amount of new infrastructure in terms of both utilities as well as new roads. My big question is, who will pay for that infrastructure not only to build it, but also how it will be maintained?
Speaker 11: Because this is not.
Speaker 0: Right for an airport development. The airport enterprise will be responsible for paying for infrastructure. Off airport development, I think, is still something that we are hoping to have conversations with the Adams County and Adams County jurisdictions about this regional entity that you mentioned. Councilwoman Shepherd could be a vehicle to getting to regionally cooperative infrastructure, both the development of the planning for and the payment of. But it may not be there may be other options out there as well, but that entity could be a vehicle.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then my other. So one of our upcoming agenda items is about I-70. And certainly all of the growth in northeast Denver in the metro area has caused tremendous impact to I-70, which we're going to be discussing here pretty soon. Will part of this planning include a traffic impact study for I-70?
Speaker 0: For Pena Boulevard? Yes. I'm not sure about I-70. Okay.
Speaker 5: Those are my questions. Council President and I would like to pull it out for a vote.
Speaker 1: Sure. All right. Well, let's do that first. Councilwoman Ortega, when you make the motions for us tonight. I will. Will you please have four or two ordered published?
Speaker 9: Mr. President, I move that council bill 402 series of 2015 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Has been moved in saying Councilman Shepard. Okay we go to the other council member station.
Speaker 5: And then if you could come.
Speaker 1: Back. Absolutely, we will do that. Councilman five zero.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Mr. President, I know.
Speaker 1: That.
Speaker 3: You have been gone so long that in. Now that we have this up for a vote, I would perhaps like to even make an additional comment. The more than one I was going to to say I'm going to be supporting this agreement, I think it really is a fine agreement. I'm delighted to see the Adams County officials here. Thank you for coming. I remember back in the 1988 time period when even for your predecessors, this was a tough swallow. And it was really an excellent example of cooperation, very tightly drawn agreement that needed changes if the vision that we were all flying today were to come about . So this agreement, I believe, is essential. Now, Councilwoman Sheppard, the $10 million made me flinch at first to $10 million has that habit. But when I think about what Adams County is doing to come to the table now, I am willing to go that extra step because I know it's difficult to get these kind of agreements going . And I also remember the history. And given the history and since we have acknowledged individually the Adams County Commissioners, I want to acknowledge former Representative Pat Grant, who I also think had something to do historically with the original agreement. Thank you, Pat. Thank you to all of the Adams County officials, former and present for supporting this. And I hope council will also.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: I just want to ask David Broadwell a couple clarifying questions. I didn't hear the answer to Councilwoman Sheppard's question about the number of acres in the clear zone. And then I also want to clarify whether or not those the land in the clear zone is within the LDA noise contour and whether any residential can be built on that.
Speaker 10: So when you say land in the clear zone, you mean total number of clear zone acres or developer developable number of clears on acres?
Speaker 9: Probably developable is more important and accurate.
Speaker 10: Well, I'm going to defer Dan Paramus in the room and he may have some more precise acreage language, but it's a good it's a good time to pause and clarify that the clear zone areas are heavily regulated still under federal regulations that define what can and can't be there in terms of instruction. They're called clear zones for a reason. Right. So so we've identified very surgically some potential. And I'll I'll turn it over to Dan right now to talk about kind of in gross numbers, how much acreage that might be. Just to start answering your series of questions. Thanks, David. Council President and Council Members Dan Paramo with Dear Dan Real Estate in total Councilwoman. There's about 8000, a little over 8000 total acres in the clear zones. When we look at the actual developable acreage, we've focused just as we have on the airport land, on what's kind of immediately developable. And that generally looks to be about 500 to 800 acres. But over the long term, as we develop infrastructure.
Speaker 2: Additional acreage will become.
Speaker 10: Developable out of that 8000.
Speaker 9: Then will you just clarify from the maps that you all provided in the documents that we received, it looks like all of the clear zoned land is on the outside edges of the airport. You just clear?
Speaker 10: Correct. I believe on your packet, the clear zone was all in green on the perimeter of. Of the airport.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Shephard, come back to you.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I am calling it out for a vote. There is a lot to like in the plan. Obviously, the economic development potential of this is huge, not just for Denver, but the whole region. And I mean, the revenue sharing between the counties is absolutely historic and precedent setting, setting. And, you know, it has so many wonderful implications in so many ways. I have not been privy to any of the negotiations. I also do not serve on the airport committee. I have tried to do my best due diligence on this and have been briefed a couple of times by the consultants on the plans. But. And I mean, this is huge. What we're talking about has huge implications for the city, for the region, for what development looks like for the whole northeast area. I have a lot of questions about, you know, where will the workers that are going to be working at this be housed? And I have huge questions about the impacts to our transportation infrastructure, not just to the things that are going to be built on airport property as a result of this. But for the surrounding transportation infrastructure, I have a lot of questions about, you know, what type of public transportation will be here, how it will be augmenting all of this. And I feel for my and this is my comments are in no way meant to disparage all of the hard work of everyone that's been involved in this Adams County team. You know, the airport folks, the consultant team, everyone else. I want to feel more comfortable about what I'm actually referring because because the implications go far, far, far beyond just the financial agreement between the two counties. I want to understand the long term land use and transportation issues surrounding this. I just can't I don't feel comfortable voting to refer it to the ballot tonight, so I will be abstaining.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. This indeed has been a long time coming. And I really wonder if our guest in the chamber this evening, the two county commissioners from Adams County, ever thought they would be sitting in this chamber and listening to this debate? And by the way, I think our benches are probably harder than yours. I am pleased to support this tonight, and I want to thank the two teams. On both sides that were involved in the give and take to make this possible. And I hope my colleagues would join me in supporting this this evening. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to wait to chime in because I wanted to kind of understand and hear my colleague, Councilwoman Shepherd's, concerns a little better before deciding whether I needed to to speak. I will be supporting the agreement tonight. And it's not because I don't share some of the same questions that Councilwoman Sheppard does. I do think that a few things help me feel a little more comfortable, though, and not to change her mind because I respect her, her differing opinion. But we have a train that is going to the airport with two major stops. One is already planned and that one has the potential for significant residential. And so whether we do or don't approve this particular agreement, development is already headed into that corridor. So the question really isn't, is development going to continue to grow in the far northeast corridor toward the airport? The question is whether the airport land is in play for that or not. And, you know, we know that most all of this land is not really for residential. And so for me, the potential here is as a major city that's losing land along the I-70, in the 25 corridors and in some respects along the river as well for industrial and manufacturing purposes. Those areas, generally speaking, are slowly and incrementally being re zoned from industrial manufacturing type uses to residential. So if I, as a major city, want us to have a piece of that potential sector in the future, and I want us to be able to have some balance right the tax base that we need. Residents are more expensive to serve, right? They need libraries and they need all kinds of schools and services. And businesses are an important piece of the tax base to support that kind of residential service space. So if I see the trends happening, which I see happening then and I and I believe in having middle class working jobs in the city and county of Denver and not I mean, I love that our our region is interconnected. And I know many of our residents work in Commerce City and other areas in the region, but I want some of those kinds of jobs in Denver, too. I think it is worth the leap now to say that that's possible. I share your concern about the transportation network to get them there and all those pieces. But the thing that I have is the knowledge that this body, whether I'm on it or not, over the next 30 years that this all unfolds, will have a say over each of those leases. Because when we lease land and I just look at the city attorney, even if it doesn't, we have a $500,000 threshold for contracts. But we we vote on every lease regardless of the dollar value. Is that correct? The city attorney is nodding. For those of you who do not have video, he's nodding yes. But that is the way that I think this body stays very active in ensuring. And this is where. So how do we know that Adams County will continue to participate in a conversation about transportation? Well, they have a vested interest now in that development happening. So if we see a lease coming to this body that has a significant, you know, job base and we don't feel like there's local transit to get folks from the the rail station to there or there's not adequate roads. We can say we want to see a conversation about that infrastructure and Adams County will have a vested interest in participating because they won't see the revenue from that conversation unless they're part of the transportation conversation. So so I realize that what we're doing is we're making planning possible. We're not actually planning. I just want to make really clear, I'm not agreeing to development at the airport. I'm not planning development at the airport. What I'm saying is it's possible. And I think that like Councilman Brown, given the history, I mean, I think that if you go back here, the privilege of this airport was made possible by the voters of Adams County. That's that's a fact. And so to the extent that there is consideration in this agreement of $10 million up front, it is an acknowledgment of of who made this possible in terms of the enormous economic impact from the airport. At that time, they thought that investment would immediately result in significant commercial development, you know, outside the airport land and in their jurisdictions. That didn't happen. It turns out that the trend was that those developers want to be closer to the airport than we thought. So they made some assumptions, but they made some sacrifices. We're making some sacrifices of $10 million and we're making some assumptions. And so I believe that that it's okay to pave the way for that possibility, provided we keep lots of control over each of the steps along the way. And I'm sure that although they won't be ready in the next few months when the planning is progressing, this council does need to be a part of that conversation. It does need to come to us. Even if the zoning is in place, the plan should go through this body and I will, you know, advocate for that to happen. So sorry for the long comments, but I think that just kind of sharing some reasons why this is important that hadn't been mentioned previously. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Any other comments for or two is on the floor for publication, Councilman Brown.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Mr. President, but I just want folks to remember that this is not a final vote in terms of this agreement. This is up to the voters to simply refers this issue to the voters. Of course, they're going to be questioned. So we've had some good ones tonight. And guess what? That's why you have a campaign to educate the voters about the advantages or perhaps disadvantages of this agreement. So all we're doing is putting it on the ballot. We hope we have a good campaign. We hope we have enough money to run a good campaign. But this this is the first step of a long journey, which will end on November the third. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brown. All right. No comments on 402. See? None. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 4: Shepherd.
Speaker 5: Epstein.
Speaker 4: Susman. Hi, Brooks Brown. Hi, Fats. I can eat Lemon Lopez, Montero, Nevitt Ortega. I rob I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right, Madam Secretary, please call the voting. Now the results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes, one abstention.
Speaker 1: One abstention. 402 is over.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Her vote or electronic vote was no. Is that what you wanted or to abstain?
Speaker 5: Abstain.
Speaker 1: It's abstain.
Speaker 4: Changes. It's chosen. No, on my. Oh, no, Annemarie.
Speaker 1: At 1212 eyes one abstention four two is ordered published. All right, one down, six more to go. If I were to go next. One 379. Councilwoman Monteiro, what would you like for us to do with this?
|
Bill
|
Refers to the ballot at the November 3, 2015 coordinated election a question concerning the approval of an Amendatory Intergovernmental Agreement with Adams County governing the development and use of certain property at Denver International Airport. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Refers to the ballot at the November 3, 2015 coordinated election a question concerning the approval of an Amendatory Intergovernmental Agreement with Adams County governing the development and use of certain property at Denver International Airport. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 6-9-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06222015_15-0379
|
Speaker 1: At 1212 eyes one abstention four two is ordered published. All right, one down, six more to go. If I were to go next. One 379. Councilwoman Monteiro, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 6: I just wanted to call 379 out. Which. Talks about National Westerns Center in the Colorado Convention Center. I just had some questions.
Speaker 1: Go right ahead.
Speaker 6: Certainly, I would like someone from both the Colorado Convention Center and also from National Western and possibly the city to be able to come up and explain to the voters exactly what this council bill does.
Speaker 1: All right, Kelly, you coming on the.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Just do it. Mm hmm.
Speaker 10: They went to grab Kerry Kennedy, so.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Mr. President. Members of council. I'm Carrie Kennedy on the City CFO. I apologize. I was just out in the hallway congratulating folks on your last vote, but happy to take questions on the referral of the ordinance for the National Western Center.
Speaker 1: Come from Ontario. Go ahead. Repeat your question.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So what do we have before us this evening? What does this proposal do? This is a good time to explain to people watching television. And then the next one, the next question that I would like to ask too is from National Western Stock Show, how much you generate every month and I mean every year in terms of national Western and the revenue. Also, the same question to visit. Well, whoever is doing the Colorado Convention Center and then I would like the question answered, how did you reach this conclusion and why was this method why are we looking at this method in front of us today in regard to financing for the future?
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you, Councilman, and thank you to all of you who've helped bring this proposal as far along as it is today. Really appreciate all your great efforts. This is a proposal to submit a proposal to Denver voters in November to finance the redevelopment of the National Western Center and also to finance improvements at the Colorado Convention Center. It is an authorization by Denver voters to allow the city to issue 778 up to $778 million in debt. To finance these two proposals and the source of funds to service that debt.
Speaker 10: Are.
Speaker 5: Denver's tourism taxes. So the reason the city has the opportunity to make these new investments in tourism related assets is because the Colorado Convention Center is now 25 years old and is being paid off. I think you all just did a recognition tonight that the convention center is 25 years old. This gives the city of Denver an opportunity to move forward with some new tourism related assets. I'll let Kelly lead talk about the evolution of the proposal, the net to redevelop the National Western Center, because it really is a much larger proposal than just the National Western Stock Show. It's a redevelopment of the entire campus that includes new connections between Elyria, Globeville and Swansea and neighborhoods to support the redevelopment of North Denver. It includes opening up the river over a mile of the South Platte. So there are park amenities and bike amenities and access to the river, a lot like the wonderful amenities that we see today at Confluence Park. This development will create the opportunity for Colorado State University to come on to the National Western Center campus to provide agribusiness and agro science research, veterinary medicine, and also involves the redevelopment of the buildings that are up there that currently housed the National Western Stock Show for a 365 day a year active campus . That brings new events, new opportunities for tourism, and also allows our National Western Stock Show to remain in Denver, to remain competitive, to remain the Super Bowl of stock shows, as it has been here in our city for the last hundred years, for the next hundred years. So significant improvements, the total redevelopment costs over the next ten years for the National Western Center are projected to be $856 million, of which the city of Denver will contribute 673 million. Again, the primary source of that are our tourism taxes, taxes that people pay when they stay in hotels and when they rent cars here in our city. Those are the taxes that are currently in place today supporting the Colorado Convention Center. So there is no tax increase. There are no new taxes. But we do need to ask the voters to leave a portion of those taxes in place because a portion of them would expire when the convention center pays off. So it's in essence leaving in place the taxes that are there today in order to finance this development project. We also include in this package just over $100 million for improvements to the Colorado Convention Center. And I'll let Richard Schaaf talk about that proposal. You heard a lot tonight about the convention center. But in order for Colorado's convention center to remain competitive and to continue to attract the conferences and compete nationally with other convention centers, there are some enhancements, some improvements technology, some flexible space amenities that need to be added in our convention center. And so this goes to the voters as a package to authorize the debt and leave the taxes that are in place today to support that debt in order to pay for the redevelopment of the National. Boston Center complex and everything I talked about included in that proposal and the Colorado Convention Center improvements. Happy to take questions.
Speaker 1: Councilman Terry was. Or someone else you want?
Speaker 6: Yeah. I'm waiting for whoever wants to go next. Richard Scharf.
Speaker 10: Yes. Thank you. Richard Scharf, president and CEO of Visit Denver. Yes. As Karie mentioned, what we did at the same time, the mayor felt that we should look at all of our facilities that are generating probably nearly three quarters of $1,000,000,000 a year in economic impact. Take a look at all of those at same time and see what our needs are. The Strategic Advisory Group SAG did this study in 2013 into 2014, made some recommendations at the National Western Stock Show complex, and also gave did an analysis of our convention center facilities. I will tell you this. We have a beautiful facility. It was designed by meeting planners, but what they found out is that we need to remain competitive. And if you think about it, we had Kurgan Hall in 1969 and in 1990, just 21 years later, we built the Colorado Convention Center. 15 years later, we expanded it. And right now, another, you know, 10 to 15 years, we're looking at just making some enhancements with some additional meeting space, flexible meeting space. If we do this, the study suggested that we could generate another hundred million dollars economic impact a year and also protect ourselves from losing business, because, as you all know, it's very competitive. In fact, there's 18 other expansions and enhancements out of the top 25 cities in the country right now. So we are just really doing our best to continue to generate the kind of economic impact that we know we can can generate for the future. So again, the recommendations, a lot around enhancements, some additional meeting space, flexible meeting space technology would really put us in shape for the next 25 years.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any questions?
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and ask a representative from National Western to please come up.
Speaker 0: Yes. Hello, Mr. President. Members of council. I'm Paul Andrews, the president and CEO of your.
Speaker 10: National Western Stock.
Speaker 0: Show here in Denver. What you have before you is a necessity to save the National Western Stock Show.
Speaker 10: We are at a point in history where for 109 years, we've proudly.
Speaker 0: Been at the confluence of I-70 and Brighton Boulevard. We've worked diligently with the mayor and his staff to put together a master plan that is efficient and will allow the National Western Stock Show to thrive and grow. But it's much more than that. What you have in front of you.
Speaker 10: Is the National Western Center is a global opportunity to bring in the world's leaders in agriculture year round to Denver, Colorado, increase the economic impact from around 100 million a year to $200 million per year, and put us on the stage internationally as the leader in agricultural education.
Speaker 0: Become some sort of a genesis for how to feed the world.
Speaker 10: The the world.
Speaker 0: As we enter 9 billion inhabitants. Where is that research going to be done? It's going to be done in Denver, Colorado, at the National Western Center.
Speaker 10: So for the National Western Stock Show.
Speaker 0: It's a necessity. But for the city of Denver, this is an opportunity that only.
Speaker 10: Comes once in a lifetime.
Speaker 0: And it's before us here today. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Kelly, if you can. Speak to how all of this proposal was organized and how how we reached the conclusion that we're here tonight in terms of having it go to the voters. It was was not an overnight kind of decision. And I think it's just important for my client to hear that.
Speaker 10: Sure. Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro, members of council. You know, this has been really, you know, two years in the making. You know, when the mayor announced the creation of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative, which is really about three historic neighborhoods, Globeville area, Swansea, that are very disconnected from the rest of the city, have seen no infrastructure investment for over three decades. And the National Western Center project is one of those six projects. And from the get go, this has been about strategically aligning the planning and the implementation of these projects. So we've been very deliberate over the course of the last couple of years as part of the planning that the neighborhood plans went first , Globeville was approved first than Elyria. Swansea followed, and then the National Western Center was approved by council unanimously in March of this year. And those that plan was informed by the neighborhood plans, because a big part of this is is not only making sure the stock show is here for another hundred years, and it lays out a much bolder vision about what this place could be. One of the things that came out of this effort, I'm convinced, is the work we've all done together led to a partnership with the state of Colorado through House Bill 1344. That was bipartisan support went through the legislature this year. The state now is a partner in this venture to the tune of $250 million to accelerate the development of Colorado State University on this campus, just like the State participated in accelerate the development of the new medical center at the Anschutz Medical Campus. We have an opportunity here to combine all these different funds and create a world class facility that will, again, as Paul mentioned, solve some of the world's biggest food issues. Senator Jerry Sonnenberg described it as positioning Colorado as the Silicon Valley of AG. And and so the the question before the voters of Denver will be, who do you want to support an extension of this visitor's tax to make continued investments in our tourism infrastructure at the Convention Center in the National Western. And then also a part of that is now the state as a partner in this venture. And we've also got an application into the state for what's called a Regional Tourism Act application to the tune of about 117 million. All these pieces come together, along with a substantial investment by the National Western to the tune of 50 million in cash that they will have to raise on an investment from CSU. So all these pieces are coming together over the course of the conversation we've had together the last couple of years. And I think what's most important is we always have started and finish our conversations about how does this impact reconnecting these neighborhoods. And so for a big part of this first investment in redeveloping the site is connecting the neighborhoods, Globeville or Swansea, back to the city. So we've got a lot obviously a lot of work ahead of us still to move the plan forward over the eight phases over the next ten years. But this is the next really big step to go to the voters of Denver and ask for their support towards this effort. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Kelly, would you mind coming back up, please? Can you tell us what the timeline obligations are if the RTA funding is approved by when we have to generate a certain percentage of dollars? I heard 200 million. I'm assuming that is where we're looking at more of the build out of some of these new buildings on the campus. So can you speak to that?
Speaker 10: Sure. You really I mean, so phasing the timing of how the project kind of rolls out is a really, really important conversation. In the in the master plan and in the application, we talk about the eight phases over approximately a decade. And one of the key drivers in that is that the stock show can't just close down for the next decade while we rebuild it or there's no place to relocate them while we rebuild the site. So the phasing was intentional about making sure the stock show could stay in place. So that was one consideration. The second consideration ties back to the RTA is that once you're awarded an award from the state, a clock starts to tick in terms of getting the project started within five years and then ultimately finishing within ten. So there. And that's really focused on getting the facilities in place that are going to drive the new tourism increment to the site. So obviously we have a ton of work to do on the infrastructure side. So some of the first work that will come out in front of us is the infrastructure, the two bridges connecting the site to Washington Street, which do not exist today. Moving rail off the river that will allow us to free up and a mile of the South Platte River and reclaim and create 12 acres of new open space along the river. A new consolidating the rail, create a new national western drive to connect the site. So there's a lot of work we have to do in the early years to set the site up for success. And then the vertical development we'll we'll follow specific to your question about the 200. So I think you're referring to the the dollars that we still have to fill to meet our obligations. Is that what you're referring to?
Speaker 9: Richard Sharp had mentioned, I think it's who referred to the 200 million that we would see.
Speaker 10: Oh, you're referring to Paul. So right now. So that's an economic development question. Right. So right now it's about 100 million or so in economic impact that the stock show has on our economy. The build out of this plan essentially doubles that economic impact to the site because you're now able to have more events on the site . I mean, right now the site is very inflexible. It's really very limited in what you can do this the new facilities really allow for true flexibility, year round use of the facilities for the stock show. It allows them to grow the number of breeds during the 16 day show. It allows for a significant growth in the equestrian or horse business on site and really positions this facility as a perennial player in the large horse shows. That's going to drive nearly a million additional visitors to the site just on the tourism side around it, kind of equestrian related events. And then there's a whole nother conversation we'll have about the agribusiness and agro science jobs that will start to emerge in and around this campus to make it the the kind of perennial place to study ag related issues. So the, you know, this is with the commitment of finishing this project really sets the stage for a long term sustainable model for both the stock show and the site to generate substantial economic impact, both to the city of Denver and to the entire front range.
Speaker 9: So, Kelly, what I was trying to understand was if the 200 million that we anticipate seeing annually is at full buildout with all the new buildings on the site, or is it just with what the 800 million will buy with the approval of the.
Speaker 10: Really good question. So I think, you know, obviously, to maximize the the the economic impact you got, it got to see the whole build out. But I will tell you, in the RTA, our first two, which are really addressed, the first couple of phases and builds the livestock center, the new livestock center and the equestrian center, those are considered really the key drivers of the new tourism increment. So those are early deliverables. As part of our initial build out, we've got to meet those requirements under the state. So you're going to start to see improvements in the economic impact of this campus of the center as a result of those two buildings while we continue towards the full buildout.
Speaker 9: Okay. And then I just wanted to ask Kent Rice if you could talk a little bit about the anticipated future of the Coliseum, knowing that at the end of the day, when the new facility is built on the north side of 87. Indeed that the Coliseum will no longer be utilized for the stock show and the rodeo. So what is the vision in the future for the Coliseum and the 30 acres of land that we.
Speaker 10: Can't rise here? Executive Director, arts and venues for the city. And we manage the Denver Coliseum. So I'm going to answer your question by first answering one you didn't ask, which is always risky. But the good news is the Coliseum has a near term future that I think is quite bright, which is probably for seven, eight, nine years we'll be operating it as the Coliseum. So in the neighborhood it will still be there. We hope to have more events because we're going to continue to do some capital improvement. As for what happens when there is a new arena built and that's one of the big exciting opportunities in the whole plan for the National Western Center is to have a.
Speaker 0: Fully functioning 21st century.
Speaker 10: Arena, which the Coliseum, regrettably, is not. It's a beautiful building, but it's it's from the last century. What will happen with that 30 acre site is to be determined. Councilman Ortega we don't know the answer to that yet. So it could be adaptive reuse for a variety of things. But our main near-term planning is around how to keep it functioning for the next 7 to 8 years.
Speaker 9: And if we do have I don't know if the request is the right word, but there has been anticipation that the building remains because of historic value. Can you speak to that?
Speaker 10: Only that I've heard the same requests, that people have a lot of affection for the building, as do I. But we haven't really address what will be done with the site.
Speaker 9: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 10: You're welcome.
Speaker 9: I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I have one last question for David Broadwell. Can you just talk about should this past this evening what the election cycle would be when that happens, where voters could potentially see this on the ballot?
Speaker 10: Yes. Just like the last question. You were debating the last ordinance before. This is simply a way to get it on the ballot for the November 3rd election because it involves bond. The debt inevitably requires the approval of the voters, both the element of the measure that that incurs the debt as well as extending the expiring taxes . Those are both things that are triggered under TABOR in terms of needing voter approval and that will and that will occur on November 3rd. In terms of the voters giving a thumbs up or thumbs down that we actually. Every year there's some time over the summer when we meet our statutory deadlines for getting things on the ballot. We're moving these two things forward tonight, but there's plenty of time in terms of between now and September to to get the measures on.
Speaker 6: One more question. So, Mr. Broadwell, essentially what's before us tonight is to either approve or disapprove this going forward so they can it appear on the ballot?
Speaker 10: That's right.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank thank you. Come from Ontario. So that was not called out. Any other questions or comments on 379? All right, Madam Secretary, you ante up the next one, which I believe was 381 column by three council members. And I'm pretty sure these are four beyond comment. So we are. Yes, I believe this is going to be a vote count from Ontario. I believe you have this called out for an amendment, correct? Yes. Okay. So that will need to go first. Councilwoman Ortega, I believe, wanted to call it out as well for a courtesy, is that correct? Yes. Okay. And then, Councilwoman Fox, you were just for you.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. We spent a lot of time talking about the stock show measure that would be sent to the people. Did I miss the vote?
Speaker 1: It was not called out for a vote.
Speaker 3: Right. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 9: So you want me to place this on the ballot? Three one.
Speaker 1: Come to my apartment, make sure. Did you want 379 called out because you did not only count.
Speaker 3: Oh, I didn't know. I didn't want it called out. I thought it was okay.
Speaker 1: No, it was not got him. So we are going to start with 381 so we'll do the amendment first will be new needed on the floor to be ordered published. So Councilman Ortega, would you please put 381 on the floor to please.
Speaker 9: Mr. President, I move that council bill 381 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved in, second in. And now, Councilman Monteiro, we need a motion to amend.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2015, the question of whether the City shall be authorized to issue bonds or other financial obligations for the purpose of financing the following tourism related projects: the National Western Center and improvements to the Colorado Convention Center; and in connection therewith to eliminate the expiration date of the lodger’s tax and the auto rental tax at a rate equal to 1.75%; providing the form of the ballot question; providing for other details in connection therewith; and ratifying action previously taken.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Refers a question to the November 2015 ballot to seek authorization for the City to issue bonds or other financial obligations to finance tourism related projects for the National Western Center Campus and improvements to the Colorado Convention Center and to eliminatie the expiration date for portions of the lodger’s tax and the auto rental tax. This bill must pas
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06222015_15-0381
|
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved in, second in. And now, Councilman Monteiro, we need a motion to amend.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 381 be amended in the following following particulars on page one line 17 Strike City Clerk's filing number 2015-0265 and insert City Clerk's filing number 20150265.
Speaker 1: Dash a thank you comment on the amendment. Councilwoman Montero Thank.
Speaker 6: You, Mr. President. The purpose of the amendment is to include technical changes requested by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The mayor's office reports that there are no changes to the financial commitments or project details as presented in committee, and the Colorado Department of Transportation and the City of Denver remain committed to creating a partnership that is mutually beneficial and keeps the community in mind. This amendment would allow for the substitution of the new contract with a new filing number. These changes would, number one clarify language at the Brighton Boulevard box. Culvert could be used for both city surface drainage needs and as an alternative connection point for the I-70 residual drainage pipe. This will enable us to build a drainage pipe in Brighton Boulevard prior to paving currently scheduled for 2017. Let me go back 2016 2017, thus limiting future paving impacts. Number two adds boilerplate language required for all state contracts with vendors per the request of the state comptroller's office.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Any comments on the amendment? Councilmembers Ortega or Fox?
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 1: Go right ahead.
Speaker 9: I want to specifically address the box culvert because I'm not sure this is just a minor amendment because if you look at the actual agreement, number one, Denver is. The language is changed so that now we would pay up to 2.5 million. Actually, the state would pay up to 2.5 million towards the box culvert. And in the previous language that was the total cost. And so I want to know, number one, if the cost has changed in the estimates, because that language sort of changes the way that that it reads. So I don't know who wants to speak to that.
Speaker 7: Mr. President. Point of order. Could someone also reference it's a you know, it's a multi page contract. What section? The language change that you were referring to. Councilwoman Ortega. So we follow along.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's. Let's see. I believe it's for me to find the actual page here.
Speaker 0: I think Sky.
Speaker 3: Council.
Speaker 5: Creatures on page three. It's in section one, the 2% drainage project, an early action drainage project in that Section A and I can hand you a red line if that.
Speaker 9: Helps you so I can read the way it read before in the way it reads now. So you have that clarification.
Speaker 1: Go ahead. Ahead.
Speaker 9: Just trying to start at the beginning of the sentence the two base and drainage project including the. Remaining. The EDP is the. East at the Early Action Drainage Project. Sorry I lost my my place here.
Speaker 1: Kathleen Kennedy. Did you find the spot? As long as.
Speaker 5: I do.
Speaker 0: It.
Speaker 1: Kathleen Kennedy dissatisfied. I want to go ahead. We can go ahead and get your questions answered, Councilman Ortega. So whoever.
Speaker 9: Okay, so I'm not sure who's addressing that, but what I'm what I'm trying to clarify is what is the cost now? Has the cost change? Because the language is basically saying now that the state will pay up to that amount. And that raises the question about whether or not the cost of the box culvert has changed.
Speaker 5: High Council president and council. I'm Leslie Thomas. I'm the city engineer, and the cost estimate has not changed. And the city attorney here, the attorneys are here, but the new language does not read up to it. Says that the state will pay the city 2.5 million.
Speaker 9: Okay. It must have been the language that I was reading before, because as as I read it, it was not clear that we were changing that verbiage. Says the city. The city will pay 2.5 million toward the construction of Brighton Boulevard box culvert. And before the language said that the cost was 2.5 million. So. If you read the the lines above it, it says the estimated cost was 14.9 million. For the Brighton Boulevard box culvert estimated to cost 2.5 million. So you're saying that that amount from the state is exactly the same and we're anticipating the cost of the box culvert to be. The 14.9 million. Looks like it's the residual drainage pipe, not the box culvert. So that's. That's where I'm confused here. And I just wanted to make sure I clearly understood what the cost of the box culvert part of this project is.
Speaker 2: In terms I think I'm sorry, Sean Sullivan with the city attorney's office. I think Miss Thomas addressed the cost being two and a half million. The language of the agreement went from the state shall pay the city two and a half million for the Brighton Boulevard box culvert on or before September 15 to the city will pay the city to one and a half million toward the construction of the Brighton Boulevard box culvert. It's it doesn't. The state. Excuse me. The state shall pay. So.
Speaker 9: So that doesn't change anything.
Speaker 2: And it didn't change the intent of the of the paragraph.
Speaker 9: Or the cost. Okay. That's the only clarification I had on this related to the amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other comments on the amendments? Yeah. See? No seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call voting on the amendment.
Speaker 4: Montero I nevett i. Ortega I Rob Shepherd. Susman High. Brooks Brown high.
Speaker 3: Thoughts I can each layman i.
Speaker 4: Lopez, i. Ortega.
Speaker 9: I voted already I got.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right, now, Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 3939 as Council Bill 381 has been amended now. Councilmember Taylor, we need a motion to order published as amended.
Speaker 9: Do we need to do that before we actually discuss the bill? Okay. I move that council bill three 8381 be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 1: Is then moved in second and now councilwoman fights Europe.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. It's for the people at home. This is an intergovernmental agreement between the city and various aspects of the state, especially the Colorado Department of Transportation, concerning I-70 improvements and drainage. This is not an issue that goes to the voters like the other two. Just to clarify. I am. I'm bringing this out in order to raise some concerns. And first of all, I'm to say what I what I don't believe we have any disagreement on. I-70 needs improvements. The area has drainage problems. And Gretchen, the staff all of the staff has worked very hard on this. Let me talk about the transportation side of my problem, though. And before I go into this, I want to clarify that in my past history in the legislature, my first at least six years were spent specializing in transportation issues and transportation funding. I chaired the Transportation Committee for two terms, and so I have some very strong feelings about what is proper public policy and what is not proper public policy. For me, the expansion of an existing interstate, a freeway is inappropriate to be handled through Lexus lanes. And so from from my perspective, I raised that issue with Colorado's Transportation Department. And when they asked for public comments, nobody is really talking about whether there's another way to fund these improvements. Everybody's just assuming we're going to do everything by doing expansions, whether it's to Boulder or whether it's I-70. We're going to do it through Lexus lines, and I don't happen to see it that way. And I'm speaking as a person who has voted for gas tax increases more than once. I believe there is a public policy involved here. And for 20 years, people have just simply taking a walk on that public policy. We need to have a discussion of how we're going to fund public infrastructure, not just use this kind of approach. Moreover, in toll roads, I carried legislation on toll roads very supportive of the A470 may be the only council person that has the express toll rfi the new transponder on my car. I use it. I pay for it. I'm happy to do so. It was going from point A to point B. A road was built and we got a connection that would not have otherwise been able to be there. I am just appalled to see that this that the Lexus lane is not getting more of a discussion and tolling this additional expansion. I do not support it at all. Secondly, the drainage. I have had only one comment from a constituent out in southwest Denver as a civil engineer who had done work on on transit projects before . And the comment was that if we lower the highway because of the drainage issues, we are about to enter the biggest debacle that we ever could have. That stuck with me. Now, I know that there's been a newer drainage plan, a much more expensive drainage plan suggested that may solve the problem. I'm a person who has a lot of skepticism. I really like engineers. I don't always believe that when they say this is going to solve the problem, it will solve the problem. So I don't know if that's going to happen, but I do know that for a drainage problem that is costing as much as this one is that to have urban drainage pay, only 9.5 million, they just told me today is just insane. Why would you have urban drainage contribute so little? To a huge drainage issue. Now, when you separate out, let's go to money. When you separate out money, there's a $1.56 million of city money. Going into this. 76 million of it is basically enhancements we've asked for. 37 million of the enhancements are on the transportation side. I really hope that the new council members understand this. They are going to be paying starting in 2022. $2.68 million from the city annually for 30 years. There is no source identified for this money. Moreover, if we don't, the state is given authority to notify the rating agencies if the council fails and it's right there in the agreement that we're going to be voting on. Now on the drainage side, 39,000,000 million of enhancements. That's not even the the big drainage project they added. 39 million are for connectivity and park like features. That is going to require along with that other bigger portion increases in the wastewater fees. I'm not going to be sitting here to vote for the wastewater fees. The people that are going to be either going to be voting them up or voting them down are not all here. Some are. Some aren't. So. My bottom line is that even though I do want in on improvements in this area and I am willing to look to other solutions, I don't believe this is the issue that this council ought to be deciding because I can't follow through on the annual payments that are required, and I also can't guarantee that the wastewater fees are going to be increased. I would be very interested in delaying this until the next council comes on. They can get up to speed very quickly on this issue, but I am not going to sit here and have them tell me she made me do it. I have to increase your wastewater fees because that stupid council that was sitting here before made me do it. I'm not going to do it. So I'm going to be voting no on this. And I would love it if the future council would have to deal with this issue.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Mr. President, I want to request a public hearing on this. And you and I talked about when that would be most appropriate. Looking at the calendar of so many other public hearings, we have scheduled both for next week as well as for July the sixth. So my request would be to do that on the 13th. I know that would be the last night that this council would be seated for some members, but I don't believe we have time on the calendar to do it. On either of those two nights, unless we plan to be here till wee wee hours of the morning, which we're probably going to be anyway, given the large number of public hearings that have been scheduled. So the request is for a public hearing, but I guess I would need to move to postpone final action with a public hearing to the 13th of July.
Speaker 1: So that is correct, Councilman. But we will first need to vote as it currently on the floor to be published as amended. So once we have that vote, assuming that vote is successful, then you will make a motion to delay final consideration.
Speaker 9: Until we just published as amended.
Speaker 1: We just approved the amendment and now we have it on the floor, published as amended. So can we vote on this? Then we will have the conversation about your courtesy public hearing, and you will make the motion, and.
Speaker 9: Then we will. I have a number of questions. I don't know if we have time to go through that tonight. It's also part of why I think we need a public hearing. I think the drainage project is absolutely needed for the Park Hill Basin and for the Montclair Basin. They will provide tremendous benefit to these neighborhoods Globeville, Swansea, Elyria, which get flooded like the last two weeks that we've had really bad rain. These neighborhoods have borne the brunt of a lot of that drainage in the highway project, I think is one that we've been dealing with for ten years. And I've got a number of questions related to the costs and concern that we have taken the drainage project and added everything else as part of the I-70 project into it. It doesn't really speak to the mitigation issues. You know, one could argue that the benefit from the drainage is is going to provide benefit to these neighborhoods. But there are issues like the impact to the residents that are within 500 feet of the highway. That in the mayor's letter that he wrote to Don Hood from CEDA in October 31st, 2014, one of the things that he did ask for and it's something the neighbors were asking for, was to have windows and doors replaced because during the construction there's going to be a lot of airborne contaminants that are in those soils of heavy metals from the Asarco globe plant. And so the health of the neighborhood should be number one in terms of ensuring that the children who go to school, it's once a year, which will continue to stay there during the five years of construction, as well as the families who live within that 500 feet. That will not be whose properties will not be taken and will continue to reside within, you know, a close proximity to the highway and be exposed to heavy metals. In the A meeting that we had last week with CDOT, they did indicate that one of the things they were looking at was purchasing portable air conditioners for the interior of residences. But that doesn't deal with the window indoors and the concern of of dust coming into their homes. So there are some of those concerns that have not been clarified because we won't see those details until we get the final environmental impact statement. And so we're dealing with some of these issues in a vacuum without knowing exactly how those concerns will be mitigated that. Impact neighborhoods that are covered by NEPA under Title six, which means, you know, they're a protected class and we need to make sure that those issues are clearly being addressed, but yet we don't have that information in front of us. I've got very specific questions that I'd like to go through. I know that we've got other people signed up that want to ask some questions, so I don't know if your pleasure is that I go through them and then you defer back to.
Speaker 1: How ever you feel. Councilwoman, if you want to go, we can certainly bring you back in the queue.
Speaker 9: Okay. Well, let me start with a couple of them first and then I'll defer to my colleagues. And then if they don't address the questions, then I'm more than happy to come back. So the first issue is under the early action. Drainage project and the two basin drainage project. Councilwoman Fox talked about some of the cost, but. What's not clear, for example, about the box cover is who owns that at the end of the day? Can can one of you speak to whether or not that box cover is owned by the city or why? And then who's responsible for maintaining it? This is the 2.5 million that I was asking about earlier.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, City Council. I'm Tony DeVito. I'm the I-70 project director. Question on the box. We are working together with the city. Let me clarify that the city's design levels on Brighton Boulevard redevelopment has not reached a point. To fully understand the amount of drainage that's going to be associated. We know that there'll be shared drainage in that and as we move forward, that is one of the items that is identified for further negotiation as we negotiate a maintenance agreement. That's one of the line items in the contract.
Speaker 9: So does that mean then that we'll see a different agreement in the future?
Speaker 2: As with many agreements between the city and the state on different levels of maintenance, with snowplows and other city street ordinances that we utilize with we we negotiate. And a lot of times the mutual maintenance plans.
Speaker 9: So is that an agreement that will come back before city council? Leslie, I'm looking at you.
Speaker 5: I think as usual and Sean can jump here depending on what the terms are, we will follow whatever the terms are according to the council rules. So if there is money changing hands or other items that would require that, it would definitely come back to city council. We don't know what those terms will be at this point. So if it's required, we will certainly be here and happy to be here.
Speaker 9: And is the funding available for the design for Brighton Boulevard?
Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 9: And what is that amount?
Speaker 5: We have $26.8 million available already as stated in the agreement. And then the remaining 42.2 of the early drainage action early action drainage project will be provided by CDOT as we spend money over the next several years. Per the agreement.
Speaker 9: So this part of Brighton, is it closer to the Coliseum? Or are you talking about the money that has been earmarked for the Brighton Boulevard corridor?
Speaker 5: This part of the Brighton Boulevard box covered is between 44th and about the property line of Pepsi, which is right around. We call it 41st ish. That's where you'll find it.
Speaker 9: All right. And then on the $80 million that the city will be spending, which is basically the. 2.68 million per year that we would be obligated to pay for the next 30 years. The 39 million, that's for the park like amenities. That's not part of the 80 million, correct?
Speaker 5: I'll defer to Gretchen.
Speaker 3: Good evening. The council president on his way out. Members of council. My name's Gretchen Haller. I'm the city's deputy CFO. And I'd like to thank Councilman Fox for acknowledgment of the team that's been working on this, but it's both the city and see that in partnership. Just to clarify on your question, the 2.68 annual payment that's anticipated to last for 30 years is actually on the transportation side of the improvements. That's the 37 million in project cost. That's the financing that 80 million for the city share. That's a 60% share of $134 million total drainage portion of the to base and drainage project that would be paid through the city's wastewater fund. Those would be wastewater ratepayer eligible project costs. And then you're correct, there's an additional 39 million to take that drainage project and turn it into the amenity that's anticipated for the community that adds the park, like features the connectivity that would not be funded through the wastewater fund. That would be if you were to think about the ratepayer costs being the conveyance of water, the movement and storage and water quality cleaning of water. These features would be the park bench that sits next to the open channel, the trail that allows bike and pad connectivity to allow that to become a greater amenity for the community.
Speaker 9: So that cannot be paid for with wastewater funds.
Speaker 3: No, that's.
Speaker 9: Not. Where will that 39 million come from?
Speaker 3: We will be talking so similar to the wastewater conversation where we will be the budget office will be bringing forward a rate increase regardless of this project for consideration. As part of the 2016 budget process, we will be looking to fund that $39 million as part of the 2016 budget process.
Speaker 9: But that's not part of the rate increase from wastewater. No, that will come from somewhere else. Correct. In the city. Not wastewater.
Speaker 3: Correct. And just to clarify for folks at home, because there are several funding parts of this project, there is a portion of this that's the 37 million for transportation related. Denver requested elements to enhance that project. There is the wastewater portion of the drainage project that comes from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund. And then there's the 39 million that is a piece of the wastewater project that is not funded through the wastewater fund.
Speaker 9: Do you have any idea what the fee increase will need to look like for the increase in wastewater fees to cover these costs or to be able to do other projects? Because we're going to use the lion's share of wastewater dollars for this project.
Speaker 3: Yes. So the Budget Management Office has been working with a financial analyst over the past several months. They were not on this timeline. They were bringing this rate increase forward anyway. The last rate increase, as you recall, was in 2011. It's been four years. So we need to bring forward a rate increase to accomplish a couple of things. One is to make sure that we have a fully funded and viable capital citywide capital program for the fund. The second is to build a water quality program for the city. That is actually a requirement from the state to help us keep our EMS for permits. We are in a ten year window and John Sullivan can speak to this on the legal side if needed. But we're in a ten year window of that. I think we're on year four. So we need to take some serious action to provide improved citywide water quality as our water flows to the to the plant. It does happen that the drainage project in front of you is one great big water quality project in our most serious and impacted basin for water quality. It's an enormous basin. And so what we are funding as a part of the rate increase, this project fits nicely into and you will see that regardless.
Speaker 9: So are we not doing a 2.6 annual increase from wastewater?
Speaker 3: No, that amount is on the transportation side and that is the amount that.
Speaker 9: Are I'm just talking about annual cost increases to the taxpayer from wastewater. Is that not something that we see on a on an annual basis?
Speaker 3: So we don't have the ratepayer increase for you today. We are anticipating to bring that as part of the 2016 budget discussion. We will begin conversations with you on that near mid to end of July. So that can be part of the September budget hearings. The only 2.6 number for today is on the transportation side, and that's the financed improvements and that payment would begin in 2022. And that allows us to leverage CDOT essentially to construct those transportation improvements. And the city does not participate in those payments until they're fully constructed.
Speaker 9: I will defer to my colleagues. I know you have other folks in the queue, so I will wait. And if you could put me towards the back, if my questions get asked, I will scratch them off my list.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I am looking at this bill, and I'm recalling our long Kent City Council committee meeting in which we discussed all of this, which we, you know, had the opportunity to really delve into the issue, ask questions, and then move this on to the rest of the council. Now, what I what I take back from it, yes, there's a lot of different intricacies, but what I take back from it is putting on my role as the chair of urban drainage and flood control. And Black is probably this is the basin, the drainage basin that is our biggest threat to the city and county of Denver , to people and property. And if we don't do anything about it, we're going to have ten times worse than what happened to Boulder and Aurora in this area with the ongoing construction, with the you know, I wasn't at first and very supportive of building this expanding the highway through this neighborhood. I was a big proponent of the reroute that's long gone and discussion. Now we're looking at drainage. We have to be able to get this done. We have to be able to move water out of this basin into the Platte River so we can do everything we need to do, but also protect lives and property, the most basic form of government in this area, and keep people safe and keep Denver out of a flood zone. So I you know, I really want to just express my support for it. I don't have any more questions. A lot of my questions were answered in committee. But I do want to see this move forward. And I'll hopefully I'm curious to what my other colleagues feel as well, too. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to just clarify two pieces, which is about the portions of this project that are necessary regardless of I-70, and then some questions about timeline. So I might just ask the timeline question first. One of the constituent questions that I've received that I think is really important in terms of respect for the legal process that we are in with the IRS, is what happens in this agreement if if the record of decision is not to proceed with the I-70 project. And so I think Sean Sullivan had answered this question for me, if I might ask him to share that answer.
Speaker 2: Sean Sullivan, the city attorney's office. The agreement provides that if the if there if the record decision isn't completed and doesn't come forth with the Lord, cover a partial underground solution, then it would be terminal at the mutual agreement of the parties. So it forces us back to the table to talk about what we need to do in next steps.
Speaker 7: Great. Thank you. Now, I don't want to be naive. Right? The agreement says that if the record of decision comes forward by December of 2016, then the agreement can be terminated. But we're planning to start construction in January of 2016. And so that detail has not escaped me that we're starting construction a year before the deadline for record of decision. So I really want to understand and this may not this may be you, Sean, or it may be someone from the project team. What it is that we'll be doing in year one and how it is how much of that portion of work that's happening in year one would be necessary regardless from or separate from the I-70 project, because I think it's a really important question my constituents have asked, which is, are we spending money on a project that's not yet approved before it's approved, or are we spending money that would be helpful for that project but would be needed regardless of it? And I really want to have you talk about that first year of construction. I didn't see in the exhibits a clear verbal description of what the Early Action Project was. There's a map. It's very difficult to read, so and neither could I find it in the PowerPoint. So I think if you can verbally describe what's happening in year one and exactly what it does for Denver, I would be most appreciative.
Speaker 2: And I'm going to defer to an engineer three great.
Speaker 4: Things.
Speaker 5: Thank you for your question and clarification opportunity to clarify the early action drainage project that is critical and we have agreed to have in place by December 1st of 2017. Yes. They're all nodding. It goes from the South Platte River up through the coliseum that we just talked about, up through the Pepsi parking lot and into Brighton Boulevard. And then if you can imagine what we were talking about with Councilwoman Ortega earlier, that's that 41st ish place. And then it goes within Brighton Boulevard over to about the entrance to the Coliseum or 44th is right where you get on the highway. That is the piece that we will need to be working diligently on within that timeframe between now and the end of 2016, I believe is what's referenced. That is the piece that is the very bottom of the basin. So think of it like the back, that plug to the back through the drain to the bathtub and the bigger of a drain that we have, the more capacity we have to pull the water out of the city. So while it would be bigger than if it was only funded by our wastewater rates, which are to provide a five year system, which is about an inch of rain an hour, as opposed to 2.6 inches per rain of rain in an hour. But it is always good to have more capacity at the bottom of the basin. So that's where we would like to see it.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President, if I may follow up. So I want to clarify then. Sorry I dropped my pen. I want to clarify then that. So we are taking input from CDOT with regard to I-70 with the design of this project. But if I-70 is never built. The project in the first year would still benefit drainage in the region, whether we go to a different I-70 replacement bridge solution, whether it. Nothing happens and we just wait for it to fall down. Whatever it is. The drainage project that we're doing in that first year before we know definitively is one that has a function for Denver's drainage.
Speaker 5: Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 7: So that's, I think, really very important. And then the other piece I wanted to clarify is in terms of the GMs for permit, you mentioned that the state has water quality. So one thing we're dealing with here is flood control. Does this first early action portion also have a quality portion to it that is contributing to the state or is that later phases?
Speaker 5: The majority of it would be later on because you're capturing so much in the basin and would have a place to store it. We are working with urban drainage and flood control and Parks Department to see what can be done in the first phase.
Speaker 7: Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. So I'm just going to make my comment briefly since that question for me was really important. I do I shared in committee my question about the timing of this agreement being early. And I do continue to have that concern that it is early. But I believe in the benefit to our taxpayers of starting a process to be prepared and knowing that the benefits are going to accrue to the city and to homeowners and to businesses in this area, regardless of what happens with the project is really important. If that were not the case, I probably could not vote for this agreement today because it is early before the record of decision is definitive. But we have a transportation agency that has an RFP out for someone to build this project so that they're prepared. And if we are able to use our dollars wisely and leverage urban drainage and flood control dollars, then I believe that it is prudent to do that, to have those benefits accrue to leverage those dollars, and not without any risk accepting the risk that should this project not go forward, we would then need to, you know, figure out a way to, you know, everyone would have to pay their way and we would have to pay out of continuing the project further. So, so that's a risk, but it's one that I'm willing to accept given the benefits of the first year project. And really that's the period of time that we're talking about is one year. So with that, I will be supporting the agreement tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: You know, Mr. President, I think a lot of my comments, Councilman, can each touch on Psalm and Lopez as well. I think, you know, at times we get in the technicalities of an agreement and we forget the reality. And the reality is this is the worst basin in the city where two basins in the city combined. The reality is, while it might be nice to wait, there's residents and businesses who are fed up about the constant flooding that comes in their neighborhoods and businesses. The reality is that if Boulder's rainstorm and in Longmont would have been over this area, we would have had $300 million of development to replace. Houses businesses I 70. And so you know, we're talking about Katrina like issues here and I know that everyone sees that it is an issue. But I think. There's not enough urgency and there's not enough acknowledgment that the city is trying to put together a plan that many businesses, many I know I have for the last four years have been looking for opportunities for us to combine projects to get this done. And so, you know, I just wanted to say that and be on the record for saying that as someone who lives in the area, who witnesses the flooding constantly. And I know that there are some issues within the contract that are good questions and we need to talk about. I just thought we were doing that for the last two weeks with the staff in committee special meetings, and obviously we need to continue to do that. But my my I would I would be wrong if I didn't sit up here and talk about the seriousness of this issue and state my my constituents concern that this project is not moving fast enough. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Laney, I.
Speaker 3: Just want to clarify one thing.
Speaker 5: That when they started the.
Speaker 3: East Line and they decided, well, how are we going to build it? They said we are going to build this, which goes right through that basin at a five year flood level.
Speaker 7: That would.
Speaker 5: Mean.
Speaker 3: That even in a regular rainstorm in Denver, if it was a heavy rainstorm, that the east light rail would flood. They would bring busses in and you would take people out to go wherever they're.
Speaker 8: Going to go.
Speaker 4: So I raised.
Speaker 3: Really a huge, huge objection to that as a result of what.
Speaker 5: Is being proposed this evening.
Speaker 3: That piece of light rail will be in the 100 year flood plain will be protected and that bright light rail line will be able to run.
Speaker 5: Almost.
Speaker 3: Always. Not by now, I promise you. Always, but almost always. It was if I've done nothing well in my in my 12 years, that was the best thing I did. So I certainly will vote for this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Lemon. Councilwoman Ortega. You're back.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I'm sorry to be in the weeds with this, but I've been involved with this I-70 project, and since. Since I got reelected and actually before when I left council, we were at the beginning of the year for this project. And a lot of the focus right now on this inter-governmental agreement is on the drainage. Some of it is on the transportation. And I think it's important for taxpayers to know what we're committing to. I don't dispute the need for this drainage project. I've seen the area flooded and know what the need is for these communities that bear the brunt of of where that water flows to from these two basins where it's needed. But I wanted to ask a question about the liquidated damages. And, Sean, if you wouldn't mind, coming up to the microphone under this section. Basically, it would obligate us to pay five. Thousand dollars a day for the project being late if it's not done by the deadline spelled out, which is September one, 2019. But I didn't see anything in there that would address circumstances like the kind of weather we've had the last two weeks. Any act of God that might occur, and it seems that there should be some wiggle room and it doesn't look like there's any wiggle room in that language. So can you help me understand if if we don't have it delivered by that date, that we'd have to start paying 5000 a day, regardless of whatever kind of weather conditions exist?
Speaker 2: Yes, Kels. Well, I hope her partners would be reasonable in those circumstances. But in any case, if you look at paragraph 24 of the agreement, there's a force majeure clause which requires or disallows the collection of damages in a situation that's an act of God or that kind of thing.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 9: Thank you. That that's helpful clarification. Gretchen, can you talk about how many properties are going to need be needed for the drainage project? And does the funding that we're approving include any of those takings that we will have to purchase as a result of the court order that we will utilize?
Speaker 3: Well, I may be as good as anyone answering this on the budget side. Yes, there is budget included in the total project cost that contemplates some land that will be necessary for the city to acquire to accomplish the project. As far as which properties would be impacted, that is not known at this time due to the stage of design that we're in. But it will be accompanied and this is really a public works question, but with a robust public process on as we move through design phases. Okay.
Speaker 9: And one last question for Leslie. Can you give us an idea what the the width of that drainage channel is anticipated to be?
Speaker 5: Yes, but I have to get out my map and maybe my glasses, so just hang.
Speaker 9: So while you're doing that, I just wanted to let my colleagues know that I had a request for an amendment that would have addressed trying to keep truck traffic out of the neighborhood and trying to tie that to this agreement. We talked with David Broadwell today, learned that these agreements are considered contracts and council does not have jurisdiction to amend contracts. So that's why that amendment is not was not brought forth. So just want to clarify that. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. So in your exhibit, it does refer to how much water is being carried in the drainage channel. So without providing you had your hydraulics lessened, it will depend upon the slope and several other things. So you can think about somewhere between 150 to 250 feet, just depending upon the circumstances.
Speaker 9: And what's the average width of a street?
Speaker 5: An average width of the street. Typical downtown streets are 80 foot right of ways and 48 feet. Flow line to flow line or curb to curb is a typical downtown street is what you would see here.
Speaker 9: Okay. So what would you equate that to? About half a block. Half a block wide.
Speaker 5: Maybe if you're on the skinny side of a block by Denver, blocks are around 300 by 600. So, yes, if you're on the thin side of the block. Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President, I. Any additional questions that I have? I will continue to direct them to staff. I've been ongoing meeting with them, had a meeting with manager, I guess it's executive director now, Courtney Hoh on Friday to address some of these additional questions. I would like to request a public hearing. So let me do that in the form of a motion.
Speaker 1: Well, Councilman, first we have to vote EIS and then we will write that. Then that issue will be addressed. Okay. All right, Council. Councilman Monteiro, you're up.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Since it feels like we're having a public hearing. I want to get on the record a couple of questions. What? What I. We did a proclamation back in April. The city council voted on it. And we talked about things that we would like to be included as the city team is looking at the is looking at the negotiation. And generally they had to do with drainage, air quality fumes, emissions, noise, traffic counts, displacement of residents, connectivity, quality of place, jobs and education for residents. And specifically, some of the things that we had talked with you about was the and I know this has nothing to do with the AG in front of us , but I have to bring it up since so many other things have been put out there. But so I would like for someone to tell me with the compensation or whatever in a position during this negotiation to talk about narrowing the footprint of the highway and what that answer is. Also the the railroad tracks at 47th and York Street, which is no secret to any of you because I'm always talking about this stuff and then also the truck reroute. So if you can answer those and then tell me, tell the public, for the record, whoever the most appropriate people are. Is this the last bite of the apple or tonight? Are we specifically talking about the transportation and drainage issue as it relates to this agreement? So who wants to go first?
Speaker 5: I'll try. And then Tony and Gretchen, maybe you will help me. So your first question was about the highway full width highway footprint. And so what I would like to share with you is that we have had a group of technical experts from both CEDA and Denver, FH, W.A. and the consultant teams taking a look at what is the reasonable type of recommendations that could be made to see that and the number of feet that they recommended that could be narrowed or taken out of shoulders and things is eight feet. Yes. And so that is a recommendation that C will carry forward to FAA and Tony can speak more about that when that time is appropriate.
Speaker 2: The City Council. Mr. President, again, Tony DeVito would see that. I want to emphasize that this agreement, while it codifies a lot of the working process that we've had over the last couple of years, in no way does this stop the commitments and the mitigation that we are working towards. On the environmental side, the NEPA process working through the next year and getting to a record, a decision, the record a decision is the binding contract with the Federal Highway Administration that mandates the commitments that the D.O.T. will deliver. And so in no way does this agreement modify, minimize, do anything to that effort as we move forward. And so with regard to the air construction dust. Air quality noise, noise, walls, everything else that we are working through will continue in the normal process. All this does is it identifies a path forward for some of the agreements of the transportation and drainage issues that we have come to terms on.
Speaker 5: So I'll do the specifics then. So on 47th in York, which we all know is a very tricky intersection of the railroads and the corridor for children to go back and forth to school between Elyria and Swansea, we worked diligently with Seedat to see if there was a way that this could be included at this time and what was determined because of some of the land that was needed, as well as some public process in order to understand whether going over or under and other things that would really could be impacts to the neighborhood needed to be looked at. And so it is not in this agreement, but it is a study funded that we funded last year, I believe through and DCC and will be as we move forward looking at those kinds of changes to that intersection to see what can be done. And I apologize. I don't remember the last part of my truck. Reroute. Oh, truck reroute. Can you talk about truck free routes?
Speaker 2: Once again, we've had numerous conversations about the different truck movements during construction. We have had very viable conversations about being sure that there's certain areas that when we're putting together a procurement documents that will be very sensitive towards idling the types of equipment staging. And so we have come to some agreements on some of those because it is interstate and does invoke interstate commerce. We have to be very cautious about restrictions, but we can encourage routing, especially during construction, especially for the through the long haul haulers that are utilizing the interstate. And we've had some conversations on that and those conversations can continue. If you have something specific I can try to answer.
Speaker 6: I just have a question for David. David Broadwell. So Mr. David always talked about the obligation in terms of interstate. And so I wanted to just ask you at what point, even though I know we don't have anything definitive, would a city ordinance be in place regarding truck rerouting?
Speaker 10: David Brock, also associate attorney. I'm really not prepared to answer that question because I'm just not close enough to the project details to do that. I would prefer that perhaps someone else in the team has a sense for when that might happen.
Speaker 6: Questions coming up to the podium.
Speaker 2: It's not an issue that we've discussed, but we can certainly look into it and see. I think Mr. De Vito was making the point that we've got interstate commerce issues, so we're going to have to look into those kinds of issues.
Speaker 6: Well, I would request that you do. That's a huge issue for the neighborhood, and it's been outlined in the health impact assessment. So I don't want it to be ignored. So if you would do that, appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Yes. And I'm certain some of those things are going to be addressed through the NEPA process as well. So.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Monteiro Castro McKinney.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to chime in. I appreciate Councilwoman Taylor. I'm sorry. Montero's questions in particular, the question about, you know, later negotiation, because I can see that as a good thing, that this is not the last bite of the apple. But my concern is that we on the transportation side of this agreement, we're committing $37 million. And what I don't what I am concerned about is that that is our leverage. And I am concerned that when we have asks to finish these other pieces, whether it's employment opportunities for the community, which the federal government is opening the doors for in ways that see that should take advantage of for this project, for example, or other mitigations that we are not in a position. And I'm just saying this on the record. Well, you know, Director DeVito is here and our commissioner is here. I don't want to hear that. We don't have any consideration to offer for those things because, you know, we've given you the money up front. And so it is critical that when we come to the table to finish all of these other pieces that are really important, that CDOT looks back at the consideration in this agreement and takes that into account when considering the other pieces that we may yet need to come to agreement on. And and I'm really serious about that, because there will be other contracts and other agreements and other approvals required, including the annual appropriation process, which this agreement is subject to. And, you know, budgets with amounts in that amount. I mean, I would say to this council and future councils that it's critical that we continue to negotiate for these remaining items and that our commitment of this $37 million upfront does not, by any way, forgo our ability to ask and demand and negotiate for other things that this community needs in mitigation for this project. So I'm very hopeful and encouraging that that will happen. But I just I want it to be known that that if it's not if the moment is passed on, the $37 million, this council has an annual appropriation where we can follow up to make sure that that negotiation continues in good faith. So little, little heads up. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm still voting for it, but with that stern warning. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, guys. Okay, so just remind my colleagues what we have before us right now is 381, which is to be published as amended. See no other comments. Madam Secretary. And after this vote, we will deal with the conversation of the currency, one currency public hearing. So that will be the next issue. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 4: Montero High. Nevitt Ortega. Abstain. Rob Shepherd. Past Susman by Brooks Brown. I thought no can teach the layman. Lopez. Hi. Ortega. She states. Okay.
Speaker 5: Shepard Epstein.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: I'm secretary. Please positively announce the results.
Speaker 4: Nice one. Nay, two abstentions.
Speaker 1: Anais. One, nay. Two, two abstentions. Three, two, one has been published as amended. Okay. So there is a request for a one hour courtesy public hearing on July 13. Just to give the viewers a little bit of background, typical requests for one hour courtesy public hearings are done at the discretion of the council president, and it's usually followed the next week. The one caveat for this time is that it will be because the request is to delay final consideration. That will require a vote of council. So what we're going to do, Councilwoman Ortega, what I need from you is a motion to postpone final consideration to Monday, July 13th. Then we will have comments and we will vote on the motion to delay final consideration and have a one hour cursory public hearing on July 13th.
Speaker 9: Okay. Let me just be very clear and specific that if the motion fails, I want to request a one hour public hearing for next week when this bill comes back. If there are not enough votes for the postponement.
Speaker 1: Certainly it can be next week or another date certain if another council member chooses to do that. You're absolutely right, Councilman.
Speaker 9: So I move that council. Bill 381. Be ordered published as amended with. So we haven't done that yet.
Speaker 1: Right? So we've done that. So it's just move for final consideration.
Speaker 9: So I move that final consideration on Council Bill 381 be postponed until July 13th, 2015.
Speaker 1: With a one hour curfew, but.
Speaker 9: One hour workers, a public hearing.
Speaker 4: Okay, second.
Speaker 1: So we need you. That technology will catch up with us, Madam Secretary. Councilman Ortega, you can go ahead and begin your comments if you have any.
Speaker 9: I think, you know, I think this just warrants the opportunity for the public to come and ask questions. We're obligating a large amount of money towards both the transportation side and the drainage side of this project. I absolutely believe in the need for the drainage. I wish these two would have been separated so that we could have dealt with them separately. But I just think that there's so much here that we're committing to. And as Councilwoman Canete said, we are basically giving up all of our leverage upfront without ensuring that the kinds of things that need to be addressed. And, you know, there have been ongoing negotiations back and forth between Denver and Seaport on many of these details. There hasn't been a public meeting with the neighborhood in a while for them to be privy to what a lot of these negotiations have included. And I'm concerned that this is part of the NEPA process. It's part of the Title six process, ensuring that the residents are involved in in these kinds of decisions that are being made. And so I think it's important for the public to have an opportunity to come and share their comments, concerns with us. The agreement is up on our system for anybody who wants to take a look at those details and be able to come and express those concerns. I've talked to a number of residents that live in the neighborhood who had concerns about where all the mitigation is related to the truck traffic that we talked about, related to the air quality impacts and what is in fact, going to be done with the homes of people who live within 500 feet. As I shared earlier, all the air quality studies we've looked at really indicate that anybody that is within that 500 feet are subject to greater health effects and especially for small children. And so I'm concerned about how we're going to deal with that, not having had not having been privy to seeing the details that are going to be in the final year. So I would just respectfully request that my colleagues support this postponement to allow us to have this one hour courtesy public hearing on a night that we're not already overloaded with other public hearings. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, Catwoman fans.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Had Councilman Ortega pushed this out to the next council, chosen a much later time? I may have been very supportive. We're still dealing, though, with the fact that a group, even on the 13th, who is not responsible for the 2.68 million annual payment for 30 years, who is not responsible for raising wastewater fees and who is not looking in the next budget for the 39 million for connectivity and park like feature funding? We have we haven't gone out to the people who actually will be doing that and giving them a chance to hear from the public. So I am not going to be supporting this motion. It's not that hearing from the public is wrong. I really believe that in a case like this it would be very appropriate, but not at that time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilman Brown, Councilwoman Monteiro said you can go before her. So you're up.
Speaker 2: Thank you, madam. Thank you, Mr. President. You got to stick around here a little longer. Yeah, well, as we all know, the the final meeting of this council when seven of us will be leaving. Thank you for withholding your applause. We've been trying for the last couple of months to avoid a public hearing on our last night, and that's why we cowboy it up and decided to have a meeting. On a night that we usually don't meet. And that's the 4th of July holiday. So we will be meeting on July the six in order to avoid a public hearing on our last night. So this does completely the opposite. Here we are again. But the public hearing proposed for our last night adamantly against that. I'm not against the public hearing, but not repeat, not on Monday, July the 13th.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be opposing the public hearing for July 13th. I think that I think that the city team and Seerat are prepared to come back and answer more questions. I want to tell you that I feel that you have done an excellent job tonight. Having said that, honoring Councilman Ortega's request, I think it is a good idea to take some time for the public to weigh in. But I will be opposing it because I am not in favor of July 13th. I think that having a special meeting on the evening of July 6th is appropriate. I took the time today to talk with Brad Buchanan, who all of you know is the head of planning and the other the other zoning, the other text amendment, public hearings that are coming up on the six relate to the Highland neighborhood. And we have worked very long and hard for two, two and a half years to work on these text overlays. And I completely believe the neighborhood is organized. They're always vocal and opinionated, which is that's just how we roll in North Denver. But I do believe that we can accommodate the request for a public hearing, not on the 13th, but on July six. So I would ask my colleagues to consider having it on July 6th.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 3: And, you know, I count eight.
Speaker 7: Public hearings.
Speaker 3: For July six.
Speaker 7: Two were on national western, which.
Speaker 8: Is.
Speaker 4: Very important. And just the staff reports alone are going to go on. You know, I'm paid to work either.
Speaker 7: Night, so.
Speaker 4: I would be fine with with either time.
Speaker 8: Although I have to say Councilman Fox has been somewhat convincing to me and this is.
Speaker 4: Just first reading. I'm open to a public hearing. I'll probably support the 13th.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. I just. Madam Secretary, just wanted me to make sure that it will be five public hearings on the six, because some of them are combined. So there'll be five on July six, correct, Madam Secretary? Great. Oh, Councilwoman Sheperd, you're.
Speaker 5: If I understand correctly, a public hearing on the 13th would be a one hour courtesy public hearing, correct? Correct. And then, I mean, I think it's entirely reasonable to have a one hour public hearing on the 13th in order for these issues to be aired.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd. Anybody else for the motion to postpone final consideration and have a one hour cursory public hearing on Monday, July 13th. Scene on Madam Secretary, Raquel Ortega.
Speaker 4: Hi, Rob. I Shepherd. I Susman.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Brooks Brown.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 4: No. Can each layman.
Speaker 3: Pass?
Speaker 4: Lopez No. Monteiro No.
Speaker 0: Nevitt No.
Speaker 8: Lehman No.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: No. Catwoman. Lemon, need your.
Speaker 0: Sorry.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results.
Speaker 4: Four eyes, nine nays.
Speaker 1: For eyes nine. The motion to postpone final consideration have a one hour cursory public hearing on July 13th has failed. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up.
Speaker 9: Okay, so let's try for July 6th. I move that council bill 381 be postponed with a one hour courtesy public hearing to July six, 2015.
Speaker 1: Wait for technology catch up. It has been moved and seconded. Do we Catwoman or take a Catwoman fight?
Speaker 3: A question. And this is maybe a rhetorical question that could just be and nodded. Is there anyone on this council who would be interested in delaying this for the new council? I'm getting the feeling that new council members would not necessarily be opposed to that. I became. And I would think that you might even want to pick enough time to get them up to speed a little bit so that it would be probably the end of August. Or if that can't.
Speaker 1: Even be chiming in. Go right ahead, sir.
Speaker 10: Well, we haven't had a chance to have the conversation between US attorneys, but you all are familiar with the charter rule that says if there's no action by counsel within 30 days of submission, then the the the matter can simply be executed that charter rules for a reason. And so we need to have a conversation about where the whether this is even feasible depending upon what the day would be. So so I don't see a lot of nodding going on, but I just wanted to alert you to the fact that you might kick into that issue if if you were to delay it and delay July.
Speaker 3: I withdraw that little rhetorical question.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Fox. Councilman or take it that you have more or are you just chiming in here? Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect to Councilman and take I know your questions are very valid and I know there are some answers that she needs. You know, I like I said, I, I do believe we have a council process. We had a long committee meeting. We had questions at that time. We had the opportunity for public to chamber. I mean, we could have had the opportunity for public to chime in. I think I don't know. I think we had it was I think we had a speakers list, but I haven't had any emails about this. It hasn't been on my ticker as something that was controversial. As a matter of fact, I thought maybe we'd spend a little time on this. We've now spent probably 2 hours on this particular issue. I don't I'm not a fan of doing committee work on the floor. And I think it's had it's process. It's you know, staff has done their job in making sure that every single one of us had the opportunity to be briefed, had questions asked. Again, I'm not I'm not challenging the questions posed by my colleague, Councilman Ortega, but I just think that we run that 30 day deadline and we run, not lose. I'm not putting this on. I mean, just fizzling it out. And like I mentioned before, there's a lot at stake with this particular bill in terms of drainage. And that's why I, I mean, I'm not a fan of postponing it any longer. All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilman Canete.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to clarify that my support for the bill is separate from the fact that I believe the public has a right to weigh in when when they've requested it, because the portion of this contract that deals with the transportation improvements. If it were only a drainage agreement, I would consider it much more cut and dry. But it does include the $37 million for transportation improvements. And unfortunately, we don't have council, we do not, as a matter of policy, have comment on contracts in committee. So there was not an opportunity for the public to comment in committee. It's always the discretion of a chair upon request to add it, but it's not required. And so so in good conscience, I have to give, you know, give this a yes vote. Although I having a courtesy public hearing at the end of five required public hearings, I don't know really meets the standard of a good I don't know the quality and what we put the public through in waiting to speak. So with that caveat that I recognize that I voted for the first motion which failed. So as a as a second time around. But I did just want to clarify that it's the transportation portion of this that I think makes it valid for public input. So thank.
Speaker 0: You.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Canete, any other comments? We have the motion before us for final consideration to be postponed in a one hour courtesy public hearing happen on Monday, July 6th. Scene nine. Madam Secretary, I believe Councilman Ortega is comments are good.
Speaker 9: I don't know why. It's okay.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Ortega.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: Rob. I shepherd i susman. Brooks Brown. I fats.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Can eat lemon. Lopez, monteiro. Nevitt.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting. And as a result, 12 eyes. One name is one day. Final consideration for 381 is postponed to Monday, July six, and we will have a one hour courtesy public hearing. All right. We are halfway there. The next one. Madam Secretary, 376 caught out by Councilmembers Fox and Lopez. Councilman, did you want this called out for a vote?
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 1: Councilman Lopez, you just had a comment.
Speaker 0: What I you. I'll defer to Councilman Fox for comments because I think I'm going to follow up with them.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Councilwoman Ortega, could you please order 376 published?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation, the High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the Bridge Enterprise regarding Montclair and Park Hill basin drainage improvement and I-70 transportation enhancements.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the Bridge Enterprise regarding Montclair and Park Hill basin drainage improvements and I-70 transportation enhancements; the estimated total costs of $134 million for the drainage project will be shared by the City and CDOT, 60% and 40% respectively; the City's contribution to the transportation project will be $37 million (201522456). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review date is on 7-20 -15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-3-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06222015_15-0376
|
Speaker 1: Perfect. Councilwoman Ortega, could you please order 376 published?
Speaker 9: Absolutely. I move that council bill 376 be ordered publish.
Speaker 1: Date has been moved and second it comments. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. This particular ordinance is not one that I object to in substance. I really do believe that money needs to be made available for relocation of individuals. I think it's a good project. I am having a problem with a developer. I've had it before. The developer has come to us for other things. I always give a person a chance, but by the time a Second Amendment comes along, that's to the benefit of the developer. And then a Third Amendment comes along and it's to the benefit of the developer. I just tend to not lend money to that developer anymore, so I am not going to vote for it for that purpose.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to follow up on those comments, you know, this is a very, very critical loan. As you know, we've been working to make sure that the folks who are on a proper and couple of properties that have fallen way before, way below the standard of living, have been on, you know, kind of teetering on on condemnation and not and we have the opportunity now, this is the only opportunity we have to make sure that the folks who are on these properties are well situated into more affordable housing, quality housing. They're relocated. There was a purposeful intent, full trigger of the of the HUD Relocation Act. We wanted to make sure that folks have access to that. We don't want folks to simply have to leave for the sake of improving the housing and then have nothing for it. You know, we have out of all the folks we have brought to this property issues for us, the issue of this property, even when it when it had its former owners, nobody came to the table except Saint Charles Town Company, our Saint Charles holding company for this particular purpose. They're at the table. They've been at the table. They've been working with community, have working with attendants to make sure that there's not only quality, decent, sanitary, affordable housing on this site that's modern, but also that the folks have benefits and relocation benefits. Every thing is taking care of in order to do that. And I can go on and on on. What an amazing project this is. It would not happen without the developer that you mentioned here and the community and the city. So, you know, we are one step closer. This bill gets us there. And I I'm going to end with that. I hope my colleagues support me on this one. I'm voting yes on it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any comments? 376 Councilman David.
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister. Madam President. Mostly I'm just stalling since we seem to be missing a bunch of our colleagues. But I think we're good. I think we're good. Okay.
Speaker 10: Let's go. That concludes my comments.
Speaker 1: Good. Thank you, Councilman Nevett and the comments. 376 CNN Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Fats. No carnage. Layman Lopez, Monteiro, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob Brooks. Hi, Brown.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: Ten eyes. One.
Speaker 1: Ten eyes. One day. 376 have been ordered published. All right. A little bit faster. Next one up 377. Councilman Lopez, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 0: I wanted to. Well, Mr. President, I want to make some amendment necessary amendments to this bill.
Speaker 1: Got it. All right, well, let's first put on. Let's publish it. Councilman Ortega, will you please put 377 to be ordered published?
|
Bill
|
Grants a $1.7 million loan to St. Charles Town Company for costs related to the relocation of residents of the Shady Nook and Belmont Mobile Home Parks in Council District 3.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06222015_15-0377
|
Speaker 1: Got it. All right, well, let's first put on. Let's publish it. Councilman Ortega, will you please put 377 to be ordered published?
Speaker 9: I move that council. Both 377 be ordered. Published.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Lopez, we need a motion to amend.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Council Bill 377 series of 2015 as follows Don't my my assistant here. Number one on page one line seven strike out quote unquote out of home placement services and replace with core services for families involved in the child welfare system. Two on page one, line eight, strike, quote unquote, for children. The purpose of this amendment is to change the title, provide more specificity concerning the child welfare program, funding for the contract. There are no other changes to this bill to be made aside from the title.
Speaker 1: All right. You can get the comments. Thank you. So we have the motion on to amend any other comments on those amendments. Scene none. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 4: Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd, Brooks Brown, I. I can each layman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close if I announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes. 377 has been amended. Councilman Ortega, we need a motion to order published as Amendment four 377.
Speaker 9: I move that council bill 377 be ordered, published as amended.
Speaker 1: And wait for technology. It has been moved and seconded. Thank you. See? No comment. Assuming you have no more comments, Councilman Lopez. Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 4: Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd. I'm Brooks Brown. I what? I can each layman. Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Kathleen Brown. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting and as the results.
Speaker 4: 1212.
Speaker 1: By 377 has been ordered published as amendment. All right. Our last one, I believe, Madam Secretary, is 378. Councilman Lopez, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 0: Mr. President, I move to amend this bill.
Speaker 1: All right. Councilman Ortega, could you please have 378 ordered published.
Speaker 9: A move accountability. 378 be ordered.
Speaker 1: Published. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Lopez, we need a motion to amend.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Council Bill 15. I'm accountable for to Council Bill 378 series of 2015 as follows on page one, line eight. Strike, quote, unquote, out of home placement services for children and replace with, quote unquote, core services for families involved in the child welfare system.
|
Bill
|
Approves a contract with Savio House in the amount of $1.4 million through 5-31-16 to provide culturally competent strength-based resources and support services children and families involved with the child welfare system (SOCSV-2015-22477).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06222015_15-0378
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Council Bill 15. I'm accountable for to Council Bill 378 series of 2015 as follows on page one, line eight. Strike, quote, unquote, out of home placement services for children and replace with, quote unquote, core services for families involved in the child welfare system. All right.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Lopez, you want to give a quick description of the reason for this?
Speaker 0: Just briefly, this is the contract with Cigna and called Signal Behavioral Health Network. The purpose of amending this bill is the change of title to provide more specificity concerning the child welfare program for the contract. The funding for the contract. Anyway, there are no other changes to the bill aside from the title.
Speaker 1: Thank you. See no other comments on those amendments. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 4: Lopez Montero. Nevitt Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. I forgot I finished. Lehman. Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please cast the voting and now the results. 1212 ICE 378 has been amended. Councilwoman Ortega, we need a motion to order. 378 Published as amended, I.
Speaker 9: Move the council bill 378 be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Or wait for technology to catch up. It has been.
Speaker 10: Moved.
Speaker 1: And seconded, seeing no comment. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Roca Lopez. Montero. Nevitt Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. I.
Speaker 3: But I can each layman.
Speaker 4: Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Councilman Brooks needs your vote. Donald Trump. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please, first of all to announce the results for vice to advise 378 has been published as amended. Well, that was all the bills that were called out. All of the bills for introduction of order published. And we are ready for the block votes. Councilman Ortega, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption and a block.
Speaker 9: And move that resolution number three, 72 and 387 be placed be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 1: And adopted.
Speaker 9: Adopted.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. You got it. It's moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Can each layman. Lopez, Montero. Nevitt Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. Fats. Hi, Mr. President.
|
Bill
|
Approves a contract with Signal Behavioral Health Network in the amount of $725,000 through 5-31-16 to provide substance abuse services to families involved with the child welfare system (SOCSV-2015-22476).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06152015_15-0403
|
Speaker 5: A graduate of Denver Public Schools with the trumpet performance degrees from the New England Conservatory and the University of Colorado. Gerald devoted his life to community service and the development of the music community in the city. And. Whereas, Gerald, as a specialist in the history of soprano brass instruments, shared his extensive knowledge of music through lecture recitals and meetings of the National Trend post-COVID Symposium and the International Trumpet Guild, an avid collector of historic instruments. Gerald also made a replica historically instruments and mouthpieces and published early brass literature. And. Whereas, as director, Gerald served as the artistic vision and driving force behind the Denver Municipal Band, which is the oldest professional band in the nation . He also conducted the Metropolitan State University of Denver Concert Community Band for nearly 15 years and was a member of the Executive Director Board of the Summit Brass. And. Whereas, Gerald relentlessly served the music community as a member of the Denver Musicians Association for 48 years and serve several terms on the board of directors. He was recognized on multiple occasions, including as a June 2002 recipient of the Mayor Awards for Excellence in Arts and Culture. And. Whereas, Gerald was committed to educating young talent through school and community programs such as delivering music programs for art streets for many years, an art based job training program for Denver youth and teaching at such schools as the University of Denver and Metro City University. Therefore, being proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Council applauds Gerald's efforts on behalf of arts and culture in Denver and Section two that the city and County of Denver show a just in a fix. The seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and a copy be transmitted transmitted to the family of Gerald Ensley.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Lehman, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: I move the council bill 15, dash 403 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilman Leeman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Jerry was my friend. The Denver Municipal Band has always been part of my life when I was a youngster living in Hilltop. We went to Cramton Park in the summer to hear the band. When I was working for Council District six, I was at Washington Park hearing the band then. I wasn't working in the Council District seven and I was at Ruby Hill Park. Hearing the band and now is the Council District four. I mean, listening to the band and South Moor Park. Jerry and I were a team. I was bringing brainstorms to the neighborhood. Every time I would introduce the band and then Jerry would come up to conduct his rained. So bear that in mind if we ever have a drought again. The band concerts are an integral part of neighborhood building. They bring people together in a community and they get to know each other and play with each other and be with each other in a park. And in addition, here's a really great performance of the band. You can get the schedule for this year, this summer's band, if you go to Denver Municipal Band dot org. So I encourage you all to visit that site and find out when the band's in your neighborhood. I would also like to thank Jerry's family for your continuing support of the band. Denver. So the band is a wonderful thing that Denver has a very special thing. I want to thank Jerry and his family for giving us that wonderful thing.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Lehman. Other comments from members of council, they're.
Speaker 6: Not showing up for some reason.
Speaker 1: I know. And it says the whole it has everybody here ready to to vote. So. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Do I. Did I.
Speaker 7: After.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Gerald Ensley was a gift to the city. He was an incredible human being. That was just always so. So willing to offer the Denver Municipal Band to any event that might be going on in their district. I remember working with him on numerous occasions when I represented District nine, and then when I got reelected, he reached out to me and said, If you have any community event, you'd let me know and we'll be there to play for you. And on numerous occasions he did that. And when I heard that he had passed, it just, you know, just left a hole in my heart because he was just such a an incredible human being. And I can't imagine to his family how much he's he's missed. But I just wanted to say to his family, thank you for for having lent him to all of us and for the incredible work that he did in this community, sharing that gift of music with with our entire community. So to his family, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Rob.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. Yes. I share many fond memories of Jerry Ensley and. Like so many memories. Often the ones you remember are either the difficult ones or the humorous ones. And it was a particularly difficult time when we broke ground on the improvements to Fillmore Plaza one January or February. And but the the Business Improvement District knew that I loved the municipal band, so they invited the municipal band brass group out to play. The only problem was it was below zero degrees and their hands, their mouths were freezing to the instruments. A follow up to that is the community so valued the municipal band that they decided they would start having concerts in Pulaski Park if they couldn't always have them on Fillmore Plaza? And I think this year will be the sixth annual Pulaski Park concert that has really grown. The neighborhood brings in food trucks. And then finally, after doing annual concerts in Cheesman Park with the Cheeseman Park advocacy group in my office, Jerry Ensley and I kept talking about, wouldn't it be great to have people dancing on the pavilion? So for the last several years, he had the municipal band Jazz Ensemble playing there, and we had actually behind the pavilion in the Rose Gardens, looking out at the mountains and at the downtown skylight in the setting sun. And I don't think there's really a more visually beautiful experience that I had the whole time I was in office. And of course, it was shared with the whole community. So it's great. Remembering Jerry.
Speaker 1: Councilman Rob. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. It was very sad. I did not get the news until well more than a month and a half after he had passed. Two months after he had passed, it was very, very, very sad because he always sent me a message to see if there was anything going on in the district that they can come and play and. And he was always really happy to do it. And every so every year what they did for us for the last eight years was I said, Well, there's only one time I need you to do it. And occasional occasionally other other events we did too. But he and the band would come 7:00 in the morning, set up on those Saturdays in December to do the Sam Santo's Christmas Basket event. And they would sit up right in the middle of this whole assembly area as everybody's assembling Christmas baskets, and they'd bring that that small little jazz ensemble, and they'd be playing Christmas carols. Christmas music. And that really made the event. And if you can imagine these boxes of bread and turkey and potatoes and carrots being assembled, and these are boxes that are delivered to folks in need throughout the city. And then listening to the Christmas carols, it wasn't for the last eight years. Christmas really didn't make sense until those moments combined together. And it was. And they will always be a part of it, even though he's not here with us. I will always remember that. And those are images that will never leave my mind and understanding that spirit. So it's solemn to talk about. Is it sad? Is he just so full of life and so full of music to share with all of us? And we I'm glad that we all had an opportunity to actually listen to his spirit.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilman Lopez. Are there any other comments I would like to also express to your family? I think you're. I would also like to express to you that it must have been a blast growing up with your dad because he was music. He was a bundle of expression and and music. And the idea that he would come to any event at any given time playing more than one role, he would be playing the long trumpets for an opening, and then he would drop that and change character and go and be part of the larger ensemble. And he was so flexible and. And he just cared so much. Many of us serve in public service because we love the city and we care about it. And your father chose to express his civic mindedness and his spirit through his music and through the Denver Municipal Municipal Band. And so there was never a time when I asked Gerald if he would help in any way. He never, ever said, no, I don't think it was in his vocabulary, and I would have to dial it back and understand this is a human being that can only has so much energy to do all of these different things . But can you imagine just the idea of having live music by live musicians, going to some of the neighborhoods that maybe otherwise wouldn't have ever been able to experience a jazz band or the larger band. So I just want you to know that he was amazing. And my only regret is that I should have sent him more thank you notes and should have said thank you more often. You just never expect that you know they won't be here anymore and they're gone in a heartbeat. So I want to thank you so much for for being here tonight and also allowing for us to be able to express to you how much we loved your dad and the municipal band and that his spirit will live on. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Liman. I Lopez. I Ortega. I Rob. I Shepherd. I'm brown. I fought i. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: You need to press your.
Speaker 1: Did I forget to vote?
Speaker 2: Nope. We got it.
Speaker 6: Shall we limit.
Speaker 2: The eight eyes?
Speaker 1: All right. Eight I's proclamation 403 has been adopted. Councilwoman Lehman, is there someone that you would like to invite up to the podium?
Speaker 5: I would like to invite the family up to the podium and kind of introduce yourselves and. Just accept the proclamation.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm Pamela.
Speaker 5: Ensley.
Speaker 2: I'm Gerald's wife.
Speaker 5: And thank you for sending that card. And thank you for your kind words about Jerry and the band.
Speaker 2: And I'm Marguerite Ansley, a daughter. And we really appreciate everything that you've said about him and his hard work, and we definitely see that. So thank you so much for doing this proclamation and sharing it with us. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And thank you for joining us this evening. Health one. Rob, will you please read proclamation 428.
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation number 1504 28 honoring Mark Upshaw for his service to the city and county of Denver. Whereas Denver City Council wishes to recognize our parks colleague Mark Upshaw, who has provided thoughtful community leadership, vision and service for his 25 years working for the city and county of Denver.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Gerald Endsley’s significant contributions to the artistic and cultural landscape in the City and County of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06152015_15-0428
|
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation number 1504 28 honoring Mark Upshaw for his service to the city and county of Denver. Whereas Denver City Council wishes to recognize our parks colleague Mark Upshaw, who has provided thoughtful community leadership, vision and service for his 25 years working for the city and county of Denver. And. Whereas, Mark Upshaw values the importance of community involvement, he has actively worked as a neighborhood leader on the board of the Inner Neighborhood Cooperation and guided to community involvement and project delivery process for 26 streetscape projects in the 1989 bond program. And. Whereas, Mark wrote in initiated grants, resulting in a total of $377,000 used for renovations to the Mercury Montclair Civic Building and City Park Pavilion. And. WHEREAS, Mark has provided project management for nearly all of Denver's iconic park buildings and park structures, including Cheesman Pavilion and Fountain Reconstruction, Washington Park, Boathouse Rehabilitation, 2011 Fleming Mansion in Platte Park and City Park, Pavilion and Bandstand. And. Whereas, Mark Upshaw, a national leader in restroom design, developed and implemented the park's restroom master plan 2006 with prototypical design guidelines, which directed the implementation of ten new restrooms and 26 restroom rehabilitations, or, as my mark identifies them, little landmarks. Whereas Mark Upshaw, ever the outgoing personality, broke down communication barriers in the Department of Public Works in Denver Parks and Recreation. Through creation and implementation of a program used to identify, summarize and coordinate all public works projects to minimize impacts on park lands and amenities. Whereas. Mark Upshaw leaves a legacy of strategic and physical plans and studies, including the Burns Park Master Plan. Eddy Most Masters Park Vision Design and Implementation Restroom Master Plan 2005 and Recreation Center Assessment. 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 congratulates and celebrates Mark for his long, distinguished career in service to the preservation and improvement of Denver's parks, historic resources and unique public amenities in Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Mark Upshaw.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb, your motion to adopt?
Speaker 7: Yes. I moved that proclamation for 28 series of 2015. Be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Called my name before I rang in. It really is a pleasure to recognize Mark at the time of his retirement. I first met Mark thinking back as Councilwoman Layman did just a few minutes ago, but I first met Mark when I was working in Council District five for the Honorable Paul Phillip flowback, and I barely knew what the mockery was. And they were trying very hard to find the use for that Montclair Civic Building, which has been beautifully restored and is now used for a number of events, including once at Council Christmas party, as I recall. And then Mark and I have shared over the time I've been in office both real plans, real construction problem projects, not problems projects, and actually some great dreams, some of which have it all taken place, whether for Cheesman or Pulaski Park. But they're still out there most recently for Burns Park. So it's it's my pleasure to support this proclamation, to read it and ask for your support.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb, Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Mark. I deeply appreciate all of your areas of expertize. Every single one she mentioned. And I also am very grateful that you, a resident of Southwest Denver. You make us proud.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments? I also would like to take the time to say hi. Marc and I first worked together when I was at Parks and Recreation and. And we worked on the Eddie Masters Park, which is located in the Ball Park neighborhood, and there were many, many challenges with that space. And you were open and helped us work that through. Hopefully, that space now is it's turned into a community garden. We have a new pavilion and it's had its ups and downs in terms of and it's currently in an up position regarding the park and the issues that exist there in the ballpark area around that particular triangle . But I want to say that I want to thank you so much, because as the elected outgoing elected official for District nine and working in the ball park neighborhood that many times, our strength is only as strong as the city workers that we have that help us. We can never do any of that alone. And you helping us find the funding and doing the master plan, especially for Eddie Masters Park. It has been it's been it's been a positive change to the neighborhood. So I want to thank you. You know, look like you should be retiring. I can't believe that it's 20, 25 years or starting over. But thank you so much, Mark. And thank you, Scott Gilmer also and Laurie, for all of the support that you've been able to lend to all of our districts with Mark. So thanks. Thank you again. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Rob I. Shepherd i. Brown. I. Fought I. Liman i. Lopez Ortega. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 2: Eight eyes.
Speaker 1: We have eight eyes. Proclamation for 28 has been adopted. Councilman Robb, is there someone you'd like to call up to the podium?
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you. Council President Monteiro, I'd like to ask maybe a couple at least of the parks guys in blue shirts sitting out there. I'll start with our deputy director of Parks and Recreation, Scott Gilmore. Come on up, Mark and Mark.
Speaker 3: So thank you very much. Council members. I'm Scott Gilmore. I am the deputy executive director of Parks and Planning. I have had the joy of working with Mark for quite a while. I was actually on the Parks Board for eight years, Parks and Rec Advisory Board, and I got I've got to work with him on a lot of different projects. The one thing that really I enjoy about Mark is, you know, I can come in and most people don't think I get down, but you know, there's days that are tough and you know, you come in and you see Mark. And he was always a joy to see because he was always happy and he was always he took a pleasure into coming into the office and really helping people enjoy the park system. He would go and go that extra mile for those residents and their concerns about the park system. So I just really, really have enjoyed working with him and I don't know if people understand that this gentleman right here has one of the most amazing photographic eyes in the world. He has taken some some of the most amazing images of our park system that I've ever seen. If you walk into our Parks Department and you go to where the managers offices, there's a very, very large picture of City Park of the Prismatic Fountain. Mark Upshaw took that picture. It is huge. And if you walk around our department, there are some very, very beautiful images of Alamo Casita and Cheesman Park and other images of and just other buildings in our park system. And Mark has taken all those pictures and donated those pictures to our department. So it's just been amazing to be able to work with this gentleman. And he's taught us so much. So I think Mark Upshaw would like to say a word. Mark Taber I'm sorry, are these Mark's Mark's work? I'm Mark Taber, Assistant Director Planning. And Mark, I had the pleasure of working with you for a number of years in capital projects and design and construction and I have two. Mark already knows this, but you'll never find a public employee that that not only takes his job as seriously, but also kind of embodies the soul of the city, both in its history and in its culture, as Mark does. And so it's just been an inspiration to work with you and and a great pleasure. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. I really can't find the words to express how happy I am and how grateful I am. And I'm especially grateful that you mentioned the restroom master plan. Jane Reiber I lobby to do that. I want you to know that. And at the time it was done, it was the only one in the country. So we set new territory there. I think I'll just be I'll just say I open my heart to all of you. I thank you from the deepest part of my being, the highest part of myself. I love you. And I love this city. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.
Speaker 2: From infrastructure and culture? 364 A resolution accepting and approving the plot of Tower 160 Subdivision filing number two.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Bill, for your introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for introduction.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Mark Upshaw for his service to the
City and County of Denver.
Sponsored by Council members Robb, Faatz, Brown, López, Montero,
Lehmann, and Susman.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06082015_15-0405
|
Speaker 10: Colleges, libraries and arts organizations which develop workforce and entrepreneurial talents in advanced manufacturing and new product invention and which create economic opportunity. Bringing back made in Denver as a phrase that not only celebrates Denver's rich manufacturing and entrepreneurial history, but beckons a diverse economic future that can be made even stronger with a thriving innovation and manufacturing sector creating primary jobs for the local economy. And. Whereas, Made in Denver will be celebrated in the upcoming second annual Denver M.A. Fair, debuting on June 13th and 14th at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, a festival to showcase the work of arts and crafters, inventors, builders, recyclers and other creators in the Denver area. And. Whereas, The Maker Faire will be a multigenerational gathering of 5 to 10000 attendees in its second year, providing the opportunity to participate in interactive exhibits from local businesses, crafters and techies who make, create, engage, learn, invent, craft, hack, recycle, build, think, clay and are generally inspired and inspiring. Whereas The Maker Faire will be the launch of the Colorado Maker ET Initiative, celebrating and sharing innovation and design thinking from leading technology and education organizations that empower educators to hack their classrooms. Creating a maker and innovation approach to Colorado Education. And. Whereas, The Maker Faire is described as the greatest show and tell on Earth, a very family friendly showcase of invention, creativity and resourcefulness, and a celebration of the maker movement where people show what they're making and share what they are learning in the process of making building community, in the process of building products. And. Whereas, the original Maker Faire event started nine years ago in California and now attracts some 900 makers and 120,000 attendees, there are now flagship maker events in New York, Detroit, Kansas City, New Castle in the United Kingdom, Rome, Oslo and Tokyo, and a host of smaller, community driven, organized M.A. fairs being produced around the United States and the world, including a National Maker Faire that will take place at the White House on the exact same date as our Mini Maker Faire right here in Denver. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that Section one, the Council hereby celebrates the June 13 to 14 2015 Makers Fair at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and urges Denver families and residents to participate in and be amazed by the fun filled Penelope of exhibits being offered. And to that the clerk in the city and county of Denver shall have tested and fixed the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Elizabeth Van Dyne.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Kennish, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Madam President. I move that proclamation. 405 be adopted.
Speaker 3: Second. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council.
Speaker 10: Councilor McKinney Thank you, Madam President. I, as you know, many of you have heard me talk about the importance of making things as a primary piece of an economy. As we see more and more of our jobs in the service sector. We know that there are good quality jobs and it's a balanced economy to be making things. We had the first M.A., M.A. Fair last year. It was at the the National Western Stock Show Center. And I took my son, who's six years old, and it was amazing to watch the things that people were doing with things like 3D printers, which take a spool of plastic and can create anything that you can program in from a vase to a little car to a piece of equipment to, you know, use in an actual manufacturing process in some cases. There were also a lot of science experiments. There was creativity from creating anything you could imagine out of a humungous pile of cardboard boxes. And we all know that kids love a good cardboard box, regardless of what comes inside of it. And there were not just little kids, but there were big kids. Big kids ages, you know, 30, 40, 50, 70, 80 that were making things as well. And so it captured our imaginations. And I know that with a partner like the Museum of Nature and Science, it will be as effective this year. So I hope that folks will come out this coming weekend to the Museum of Nature and Science. And this is something that the museum is very interested in continuing to incorporate as in their regular exhibits. We all can think of if you've been to the museum, the the escalator has glass on it, so you can see how the inside of the escalator works. Imagine that at a greater scale as they continue to evolve so that you can see how things work as they put them together. So with that, I want to urge my colleagues to come out and support it and also to vote for this proclamation. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 5: Can each I. Liman Lopez. Nevitt Ortega, Rob. Shepherd, I. SUSSMAN Hi. BROOKS Hi. BROWN All right.
Speaker 11: Fox, I.
Speaker 5: Madam President. High.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, please.
Speaker 5: Brown.
Speaker 3: 30.
Speaker 1: Here we go.
Speaker 3: Okay, then. Secretary, will you close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: For Vice.
Speaker 3: Provost? Proclamation four or five has been adopted. Council McKinnis Is there someone that you would like to invite up to the podium?
Speaker 10: Yes, Madam President. I would like to invite Elizabeth Van Dyne, who is the producer of Denver's M.A. Fair.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Councilman Mitch and the Council for passing this proclamation. When I started the Maker Faire a couple of years ago here in Colorado, I started thinking of it as serious fun because it's a lot of fun. I mean, who wouldn't want to fly a drone obstacle course or create an art car with cartoonists or paint with code with spark fun? It's a lot of fun, but it's also quite serious. As Councilman Kenny pointed out, that these are these makers are the people who create our economy, who create our future. And so as a result, you have people coming in who are entrepreneurs, inventors, workforce, people whose default expression throughout the fair is one of wonder. The number one thing you'll see is and the very next thing is, I can do that. And so all of a sudden, things that people have never seen before from welding and sciencey, milling to sculpture and arts of all sorts, will go home and go, Wow, I can do that. And so the innovation economy moves forward and it's a great thing. And the other thing that the Maker Faire does is it leverages the event to get great coverage for what's happening in Denver. So, for example, last week I got a call from Discovery Channel saying, can you help us find inventors in Denver that are in the prototype stage that we can film and put up on the Discovery Channel? And I said, yes. And so this week, they're going to be filming in Denver, inventors that are happening here. Another thing that happened out of last year is Shane Evans, who is a sculptor from Denver, had built a 30 foot robot that shoots lasers and fire. And we had him featured at our Maker Faire. And because the Maker Faire is an international organization, the pictures and the and the experience went around the world. And since that fair, Shane Evans and his team have been going from city to city, Utah, Georgia, Florida and showing off and being paid for his art across the country . So he was a small, you know, locally based sculptor who now has an international presence because of it. And I'm very proud of that. The last thing that I want to point out is that this is a community event, and we're primarily run by volunteers. And what happens is people in the community come to me and say, I've got a great idea. So what happened last year was the Colorado Education Initiative came to me and said, Can we leverage the Denver fair for education? And I said, Sure, why not? And then my operations director looked at me and said, What are you doing? But that's her deal to take care of. Anyway, as a result, we're launching the Colorado Maker Education Initiative on Friday. And we have speakers, the CEOs of leading tech companies in Colorado. We have Mod Robotics, we have Spark Fund, we have Sphero, we have the head of Techstars all coming to talk to our educators about how to bring play and making into the classroom. So as I said, this is a lot of fun, but it's serious fun because it's about building our future. And I hope you'll all join me at the fair and and come around. And if you have any great ideas of things you want to do, bring them to me because we'll do them. Thank you so.
Speaker 3: Much. Q. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.
Speaker 5: From safety and well-being for before resolution authorizing approving the expenditure payment from the appropriation account designated a liability claims sum of $437,500 for your loss of Will Atkinson pursuant to the Court approved settlement agreement. Civil Action Number 0700541 to sharpen the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in recognition of the second annual Denver Mini Maker Faire, June 13 and 14, 2015.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06082015_15-0370
|
Speaker 5: 369 A bill for an ordinance for any second mandatory a proposed mandatory grant setting calendar and B I incorporated finally 370 bill for an ordinance for universal mandatory granting City and County Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc..
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Council members, this is your last opportunity to call out an item.
Speaker 1: Good.
Speaker 5: Kelly Owens.
Speaker 6: I do them.
Speaker 1: All now because it wasn't letting a good. I am the. I don't happen to have one. You know, things that I think I can do it now. Okay. You'll have to. That doesn't do it now because she's not controlling Mary Beth. Okay.
Speaker 3: Okay. I will now do a recap. Under resolutions we have the one resolution has not been called out under bills for introduction. Council Bill 344 called out by Councilwoman Sussman. Under bills for final consideration. We have. Council Bill 254 called out by Councilman Ford's Council Bill three or three called out by Councilwoman Robb and Council Bill 356 called out by Councilwoman Ortega under pending. We have all of the following called out by Councilwoman Sussman. Council Bill 298 312 313 319 321 322, three, 23, three, 24 and 325. Councilwoman Sussman.
|
Bill
|
Amends a contract with Alcohol Monitoring Systems Inc. to provide better service locally and nationally by adding the use of Ethernet communication to monitor offenders under supervision with the Electronic Monitoring Program. No changes to the contract term or amount (2013-14545).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06082015_15-0254
|
Speaker 3: Pay. Councilman Kennish, would you put this bill on the floor for a vote?
Speaker 10: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 254 series of 2015 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Fox.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Madam President. This is an ordinance that says the city will give business incentives to the Panasonic Enterprise Solution Company in the tune of over $1.3 million. Now, the good news is that it's great that Panasonic is bringing a an entire plant to the northern part of our city. And I'm very excited about that. I think it's very good, but I tend to disapprove of having money taken out of our general fund that taxpayers paid to fix their streets, to pick up their trash, to do the very basic services. Move it over to a fund that then we give money to mega corporations. I mean, we're talking about billions of dollars for Panasonic. And even this particular division of Panasonic is estimated to be earning 15 billion by two by 2020. And so it's not as if we really need to incentivize. They're doing jobs in order to reach that goal. They have to have employees. Right now, they have none here. So they have to have some employees to be able to build large screens that you can see in. Where you have our sport, like the sporting events, where you have the large display screens, that's one of the products they'll be making. They have to have the employees to do that. We don't have to pay them to do that. And so I look upon that as saying taxpayers did not pay money into the general fund to be used as a venture capital fund. I find I find that very inappropriate. And so I am usually the only one on council who feels that way. But I do believe that we do not need to engage in corporate welfare and I will not be voting for it.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman, for other comments by members of Council. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Roll call, Auti.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm sorry, Councilwoman. Councilman Ortega and Council Bill 254.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I just think that this one warrants some response. And I believe we have someone here from the Office of Economic Development. If you are here, will you please waive. Unless. Through your chair. We please come to the podium. Jeff, will you talk about the 250 jobs that are being created and what salary range that will that most of those jobs will be at? Just talk a little bit about some of the economic value that we are expected to see with this investment, if you will.
Speaker 4: So I'm Jeff Rothman with the Office of Economic Development. Thank you, counsel, for allowing me to speak tonight. Members and Council Woman Ortega specifically to your question. There will be, as you already stated, about 250 jobs will be being created within Denver. Primarily, assembly positions are the majority of the positions. The overall average salary for these positions will be over $55,000. They will be related and will we will be working with them with their workforce program the in the end. Again, these are not manufacturing positions, as you already talked about earlier tonight. We're on the proclamation around makers. Nevertheless, this is the assembly of these of this finally, I think, is as part of your question, you talked about the benefits overall to the community. Obviously, this is catalyzed in the 61st and Penn Station. But equally important, it is is it's a global enterprise and it is increasing our global access and our international trade. And then, of course, one of the things that we do, as many of you know, when we do when we consider a business incentive offer or business incentive investment in a firm, we make sure that the fiscal benefit exceeds a 2 to 1 return to the city. So in this particular case, we are receiving well in excess of $2.5 million in total fiscal benefit over the life of this project and beyond. Because we, you know, there's some point where we stop kind of counting, but because of this contract, it's a five year contract. So we'll be receiving that, both a fiscal benefit as well as job creation. And then again, the catalytic nature of 61st.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Jeff.
Speaker 3: I have. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 9: You know what, Jeff? Just answer the question. And I think it's something that just needs to be underscored, that the investment that we're making has an extreme return on investment from this corporation. And this is this is actually a big deal and something that should be celebrated. So I know that Councilman Fox kind of pooh poohed on this on this incredible opportunity for us to increase our aerotropolis. But this is something that I think the city is weak in, is recruiting Fortune 500 businesses to our city. And so I'm glad that we've got that. And I'm glad that you all use a matrix to see our return on investment. So I appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 5: Forts no can each. I Liman. Lopez Hi, Nevitt. Ortega Hi, Rob Shepherd. SUSSMAN Hi. Brooks Hi. BROWN Hi. Madam President.
Speaker 3: I. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Lebanese one nay.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes one nay. Council Bill 254 has passed. Councilwoman Fox, you've called out three. All three. What would you like to do with this?
Speaker 11: I had understood that 303 was going to be delayed until after the public the public hearing because it's part of a.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Rome.
Speaker 9: What's up tonight?
Speaker 11: It's good. I want. I want to speak to her at the time it comes back up. I mean, is there emotion scripted in here that somebody's supposed to be delaying it?
Speaker 5: Yes. Yes. Page four.
Speaker 3: Would you like to do that? Sure. Thank you. Why don't we go ahead and do this? There. What we will do is have Councilwoman Sussman. Yes. If you would like to read this into the record and council.
Speaker 6: Councilman Foster is exactly right, since we're holding a separate public hearing on Council Bill 302 after the recess. We need to postpone the final consideration of companion Bill 303 until after council's action on Council Bill 202.
Speaker 1: Three. One, two.
Speaker 4: Three, three.
Speaker 3: Three. Here, let me, let me, let me, let me do this. Council. Council. Bill 302 and 303. Which are and final considerations. Evening pertain to the ironworks foundry urban development plan and area since we'll be holding a separate public hearing on Council Bill 302. After the recess. I would like to postpone final consideration of companion bill three or three until the council action. 302 Councilwoman Kennish, will you please put the bill on the floor?
Speaker 10: Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 303 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: Can I have a second, please? Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. It has been moved and seconded. Key. Comments by members of council.
Speaker 5: Need a motion to postpone.
Speaker 6: Postpone? I'll go ahead.
Speaker 3: Do you think.
Speaker 6: I move that final consideration of Council Bill 303 be postponed until after council's action tonight on Council Bill 302.
Speaker 7: Check to.
Speaker 3: It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Now.
Speaker 1: Keep up. But.
Speaker 3: Hello. Councilwoman fights.
Speaker 11: I see. No, I agree. I very much support postponing it. And then afterwards, we can talk.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We'll call.
Speaker 5: Brooks. Hi. Brown I thought I carnage. I Lehman. Lopez Hi. Nevitt. Hi. Ortega Rob Shepherd. Sussman. I've been president.
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary, announce the results, please.
Speaker 5: 12 eyes.
Speaker 3: O k 12 eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill three. All three will be postponed until after council's action on Council Bill 302. Okay. We have another bill that's been called out and final consideration. Councilwoman Ortega, what would you like to do with this bill?
Speaker 7: I would like to put it on the floor for the purpose of a postponement. And I can explain that after it's put on the floor.
Speaker 3: Councilman Kennish, will you please put 356 on the floor?
Speaker 10: Yes, Madam President, I move that Councilor Bill 356 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 8: Second.
Speaker 3: You okay? It's been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Ortega. We now need a motion to postpone.
Speaker 7: Madam President, pro tem, I move that council bill 356 vote be postponed until July 30, 2015.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded members. Do you have any other comments?
|
Bill
|
Approves a contract with Panasonic Energy Solutions Company (PESCO) to provide a $1.35 million Business Incentive Fund (BIF) reimbursable grant for the purposes of creating 250 jobs at their business solutions, operations and technology center, located at the 61st and Pena Boulevard light rail station in Council District 11. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Approves a contract with Panasonic Energy Solutions Company (PESCO) to provide a $1.35 million Business Incentive Fund (BIF) reimbursable grant for the purposes of creating 250 jobs at their business solutions, operations and technology center, located at the 61st and Pena Boulevard light rail station in Council District 11. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 4-28-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06082015_15-0356
|
Speaker 7: I'd like to make some comments.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's see. We have Councilman Ortega and Councilwoman Rob.
Speaker 7: So as you recall, this bill came up for first reading last week and I had raised some questions about the fact that so this vacation is actually for a carriage lot owned by the city of Denver, and the adjacent property owner would benefit from the vacation. And in the conversations I've had with city staff, that property owner would not have to buy the land. It would just be, I guess, given to that property owner. This abuts federal boulevard where there is no parking. This is in a neighborhood that we're seeing major transformation or transition, if you will. And the issue of parking is a big concern overall for particularly for those residents that live on Federal Boulevard who cannot park on federal. And a number of those residents have historically utilized this carriage lot for parking. But in addition, there is an application for historic designation on the home adjacent to this particular site. The hearing on that will be July the seventh. On that application. This will give us the opportunity to hear what that recommendation is. And then City Council can do whatever they choose to do with this vacation at that time. So that's why I am requesting that we have a postponement on this bill until July the 13th.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. I do concur with Councilwoman Ortega and would ask that my colleagues seriously consider that. But I had just a couple more questions for public works. Who commented last time? You know, ordinarily in it, customarily, we vacate alleys and it's it's a no brainer. They provide access to a property. Some remain providing access only under private ownership. Some have a bridge built over them. There are all sorts of reasons, some some indeed are developed on. But a carriage lot is much more than access. It's developable land. So I wanted to ask first if you know the size of this carriage lot.
Speaker 1: I think I might run.
Speaker 12: For people who don't know what a carriage flight is it? It is a center section behind houses on four different streets. And it's it's like a common backyard or open space or parking area. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Hi, Angela. Cassi is with Denver Public Works. And it looks, if I'm reading this correctly, it looks like it's 3300 square feet.
Speaker 12: Okay. And then I wanted to know the procedure for notifying neighbors when that was done.
Speaker 1: Yep. So the process in any Ali vacation is that we initially once we receive the application, we notify about 30 internal and external agencies and we allow them three weeks to comment if there's no opposition to that alley vacation from these internal and external agencies, meaning, you know, anywhere from Comcast to excel to any internal city agencies . We then go forward with the public notification so that public notification goes that all letters go out to owner homeowners within 200 feet of the alley vacation. We they have two weeks to respond. And there are two signs posted near the vacation as notification as well. If we receive any sort of opposition to that to that from the public, it then goes into consideration with the manager, Rob Duncanson. The director, Rob Duncanson, who then determines whether there's technical merit to any of the opposition once it's then after that. If he determines that there is no technical merit to the opposition, then we move forward with city council.
Speaker 12: And so another question I had for you was this notification conducted before the demolition permit, an application for historic preservation?
Speaker 1: I did. I do not have that information. I was not able to determine that.
Speaker 12: Okay. It's my understanding that it was. So the reason I would like to see this postponed, as Councilwoman Ortega has proposed, is that this will be integral to talking about the development of actually three lots and a carriage lot. This is not a property rights issue because it's our property. We are actually giving it to someone because at some point in the history of Denver, a property owner gave it to the city. Therefore we often don't sell alleys or or right of way we we give them. But I think in this case, when there is real development potential and also a landmark issue that we should definitely take the time to make sure both are discussed together.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Let's see.
Speaker 1: Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I just have a couple of questions. So I was contacted by the person representing this property and tell me if I'm right here. We have 20 neighboring residents that signed a petition of support for this.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 9: Okay. And we have. We had one person who was in opposition. But now has that excuse me, has that person turned over, is now supporting this.
Speaker 1: Position and supporting the project, as far as we know.
Speaker 9: Okay. And and this one on consent. Was this on consent?
Speaker 1: I believe so, yes.
Speaker 9: This was not heard in committee. No. Okay. Yes. You know, I just I just encourage, you know, all of us as council folks to think about this as we were before. You know, there's a there's a ton of support here in the neighborhood. And I think we you know, Councilman Rob raises some interesting points. What we need to think about as a city and considering alley vacations. But for this to not have the the committee discussion for this to go on consent and now to postpone an agreement that public works the community has now agree with it. You know, have a little bit of issue with that.
Speaker 3: But thank you, councilman. Councilman Ortega, did you have another comment?
Speaker 7: I just wanted to clarify something, but I can wait until after. All right, great.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And then I'll circle back to Councilman Shepard.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I do think that my council colleagues, Ortega and Rob, have brought up some very prudent points here, very salient points. This is not your typical Ali vacation. I happen to live about six blocks from this site, and I'm well aware of the incredibly rapid pace of development in this particular neighborhood and how that continues to create additional parking problems for present and future residents. And I'm a little bit I guess I don't quite understand the alley of know why it was okayed for such a large parcel of land. So I do support. What? Councilman Ortega is making a motion for and I and I do think we need to hear what the decision is from landmark regarding the parcel in question.
Speaker 3: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: So I wanted to clarify that last Friday I sent out information that I had received from the Landmark Commission on. That they've the research they've done on this property and the history on it is very significant. And so I just want to make sure, if you haven't had a chance to look at that, to see that because it's very compelling. But, you know, I just think it's important for that process to take its course before we take action, because as Councilwoman Robb indicated, these two actions are, although they're independent of one another, they're very integral to what happens with both properties. We're talking about a single family home that would be basically removed. And if this land is added to it, it would create a much larger footprint for development that would take place there. And I think it warrants, you know, the community as a whole having an opportunity to have a discussion about that given the parking challenges that already exist in that neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Rob, did you have a comment? Also your.
Speaker 12: Backup? Yeah, I just was going to chime in on the process piece. I reviewed the landmark application today. I had the landmark staff send it over to me. And it's certainly not 20 people, but people should know that there are six applicants on the application so that there is community input that this property should be preserved. And then that brings me back to the connection between the vacation and the preservation.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb, Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Madam President, I, too, wanted to chime in on process because I think it might have been Councilman Brooke's description might have left out a few pieces that I'm aware of. So I want to just confirm it's my understanding and I was see on emails from residents asking for a delay in the department's decision on the vacation. And it's my understanding that it was once delayed, that the department agreed the first time and that there was another community member who asked for a second delay and that the department declined that request. So there actually was early intervention from somebody asking for this to be slowed down before it came to us. So is my recollection correct that there were requests from residents for delays prior to this coming.
Speaker 1: In and those determinations are made on whether or not there's technical merit to to their opposition to the to the vacation. So if the if we denied it the second time, there was probably no technical merit to that opposition.
Speaker 10: Got it. But just to clarify, there was a resident coming forward long before we were on the floor. They made that attempt. And can you clarify, was it a resident? I believe that it was, but I don't have a name.
Speaker 1: But the one that I have record of is a the property owner on 23, 24 federal. And we resolved that conflict so that that property owner no longer had an opposition to the.
Speaker 10: So the person the person who requested the delay was the same person that's changed their position. Right. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And one other question, just to clarify, Councilwoman Ortega's comments about parking, is it legal to park on a carriage lot? No. Has it ever been legal? No. Okay. So I just I mean, if I support this today, I don't want to mislead the public that I'm supporting it with the expectation that it that it may lead to a parking lot in terms of, you know, our code not permitting that. So I think that there is good merit. And and I do think there was some attempts to try to clarify this. And that's what postponements are for there to spend more time to make sure that we understand all the issues. So I will be supporting it, but I don't want to have that point confusing for the public that that that's a potential outcome here because it's not a potential outcome as long as this is a piece of alley right away, a carriage lot, whatever it's designated as. That, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. CORNISH Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. A lot of my questions are answered with a couple of the questions I had here. I just I just wanted to remind postponement just so we can actually figure some stuff out in the wash. Doesn't mean necessarily there's a vote tonight on the actual property. And I, too, would just want that extra time just so we can clarify that without making some kind of a rash decision or some kind of mistake in terms of what. I do support the postponement, so I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 12: In just one other point, I do know carriage slots have been vacated for parking, and that may be something that is discussed in this. I'm not saying that's the highest and best use of this desire, but in the past I know that sometimes that's the use of a carriage lot once it's vacated and no longer right away . Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 5: ORTEGA Hi, Rob.
Speaker 12: This is the motion to postpone. Yes, I.
Speaker 5: Shepherd. I. Susman. Brooks.
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 5: Brown. I fox.
Speaker 11: I.
Speaker 5: Can eat i lemon lopez i.
Speaker 4: All I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 5: 11 eyes. One Nay. Okay.
Speaker 3: 11 Eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 356 will be postponed until Monday, July 13th. Thank you. Madam Secretary, are you ready to put up the next items related to pending here? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes. To 98%. Okay.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way at 2329 Eliot Street, without reservations.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Vacates portions of the alley north, east, and south of the carriage lot with the address 2329 North Eliot Street in Council District 1. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-22-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 5-21-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06082015_15-0342
|
Speaker 3: Councilman Kennish, will you please put the bill on the floor?
Speaker 10: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 298 be taken out of order. And do I also need to make a separate motion for it to be placed upon final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 5: No, just.
Speaker 10: To be taken out of order. Yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Brooks.
Speaker 5: Hi. Hi. I can eat Lemon Lopez. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Shepherd Sussman. All right. Madam President.
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary, can you announce the results?
Speaker 5: 12 eyes.
Speaker 3: We have 12 eyes. Council bill to 98 may be taken out of order. Council. Woman Sussman, please offer your motion to amend.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 298 be amended in the following particulars. All of these are just two, I should say, ahead of time to postpone the effective date of a new bundle of tax amendments. Ready? Here we go. On page two. Line ten, strike the reference to 14th and replace with eighth on page two. Line ten, strike the word may and replace that with the word June on page two. Line 11 strike the reference to 2015 Dash oh 211 and replace with 2015 Dash oh 211. Dash E on page two, lines 15 and 16 strike the words the Denver Zoning Code adopted by this ordinance and filed City Clerk Filing Number 2015. Dash oh 211 shall take effect on June 19th, 2015, and replaced with a following a except as otherwise provided in Section two B of this ordinance with respect to certain formal site development plan applications, the Denver Zoning Code adopted by this ordinance and filed City Clerk Filing Number 2015 Dash 0211-e shall take effect on July six, 2015. Add the following new subsection B to Section two. B notwithstanding Section two of this ordinance, if requested by an applicant, a formal site development plan application may be processed under the provisions of the current Denver Zoning Code. If a complete formal site development plan application, including any applicable fees, has been filed with CPD on or before 4 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time, July 2nd, 2015. A formal site development plan application processed under the provisions of the current Denver Zoning Code. Pursuant to this Section two B shall be subject to the following requirements. I know. I guess that's a one. One. If the formal site development plan application has not received approval by the Development Review Committee or with respect to site development plan applications for certain construction and exceptions in the campus health care and campus health care to zoned districts. The Denver Planning Board on or before 4 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, January 4th, 2016. The application shall be void. Once an application becomes void, all new site development plans. Applications for the same property shall be processed under the provisions of the Denver Zoning Code, no extensions of time shall be granted to the formal site development plan. Applications shall meet all of the standards and requirements of the current Denver zoning code, and an applicant may not substitute standards and requirements of the current Denver's zoning code set forth in the Denver Zoning Code. Three Any changes, modifications or amendments to a formal site development plan application approved under this section to be shall comply with the Denver Zoning Code, including changes, modifications or amendments to an approved formal site development plan application that are sought on or before. 4 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, January 4th, 2016.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Would you like to repeat that?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman says Thank.
Speaker 6: You, Madam President.
Speaker 3: In addition.
Speaker 6: Sure. This. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the effective date of the amended and restated Denver zoning code. We're bringing forth a bundle of amendments and particularly to provide a grace period for certain projects submitted by by July 2nd, 2015, to be processed under the of the current Denver zoning code through January 4th, 2016. It means that there were some projects that were in process that had not been able to get to get get reviewed as soon as they had hoped. So we're delaying it a little time to give them about six months more time for their projects.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to add that I I'm assuming that we had all received letters from people who have projects in the pipeline that are already going through the process. And there was language in this particular ordinance that just got amended that said everybody would have to go back to starting at the beginning, which made no sense. So some of us reached out and asked the planning director to look at this and make sure obviously part of the process is. You know, when somebody's tuned to rezoning, they have to be working with the neighborhoods, as we'll hear tonight on a particular application. But in in the case where somebody's been working on a project and I did some work with a gentleman on Santa Fe who didn't need to rezone his property, who had been going through the process in an example like that would be because of this change. He would have to start the project all over if he hadn't already received his permit. So I appreciate this amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Any other any other comments? Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 5: SUSSMAN Hi. BROOKS Hi. BROWN All right. But I can eat lemon. Lopez. All right. NEVITT Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd, I. Madam President. Hi, Rob. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes Council Bill 298 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, please offer your motion to postpone.
Speaker 6: But I move that final consideration of Council Bill 298 as amended with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, June 29th.
Speaker 3: It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council. So. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: SUSMAN All right. Brooks Brown Fights by can, each by layman. Lopez I never. Ortega Rob Shepherd Madam President.
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 5: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 298, as amended with this public hearing, has been postponed for June 29th. Madam Secretary, will you please tee up the next item? Thank you. Okay. Councilwoman Sussman, you have. So on the screen. Madam Secretary, it says 321, 323, 325. Are we able to do.
Speaker 5: It's in a block right now, 312 through 325. All right. There's eight bills.
Speaker 3: Okay. So we will call that out. Councilwoman Sussman, what would you like to do with Council Bill 321?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I have called out council bills. 312, three, 13, three, 19, three, two, one, three, 22, three, 23, three, 24, 325. For the purposes of amendments on four of those bills and those four would be council bills, three, 12, three, 19, three, 22 and 324 and I will be asking for a postponement on all eight bills.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Okay. We'd love to hear the explanation. Councilor McKinnis, we need a motion to take council bills. Three, 12, three, 13, three, 19, three, 21, three, 22, three, 23, three, 24 and three, 25. Out of order.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Madam President, I move that council bills. Three, 12, three, 13, three, 19, three, 21, three, 22, three, 23, three, 24 and 325. Be taken out of order and block.
Speaker 3: Think. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Desmond Brooks. Hi, Brown. All right, Fats. I can eat. I. Lemon Lopez. All right. Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Hi, Madam President. Hi.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary. Let's see. Did I vote? I did. Okay. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the result.
Speaker 5: 12 eyes.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes. Council bills. 312, three, 13, three, 19 three, 21, three, 22, three, 23, three, 24 and 325 may be taken out of order. Councilman Sussman, your motion to amend 312.
Speaker 6: I move the council bill 312 be amended in the following particulars on page one line 23 strike the clerk file reference 0211 dash and replace with 0211-f on page one line 23 Strike the date May 28, 2015 and replace with June eight, 2015.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilman Sassoon.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. The purpose of amending Council Bill 312 is in reference to the updated City Clerk file number in conjunction with the proposed 2015 change changes to amend Chapter 59 Revised Municipal Code and amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code and Council Bill 298, the one we just passed. The only changes to the actual text of the code are to reflect that the amended and restated code takes effect on July six, not June 19th, and that the shallow lot standards shall apply to certain zone lots established prior to July 10th, 2015, not June 25th, 2015. What happened is that the three honey text amendments that we were expecting to come creating their overlay zone district and the National Western Center text a minute amendment creating their zone district are being amended to reflect the revised effective date of the amended and restated zoning code because of our change of date set for Council Bill 298 . In our last action, we need to change the dates on these that were that were dependent upon the dates of 298. So the original filed text amendments for Honey and Ash Western reflected that the effective date of the amended and restated zoning code was June 19th and this has now been changed to July six. So now we have to change these.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Other members of council. Do you have comments? Okay. Double bond area de none. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: SUSSMAN Hi, Brooks. Hi, Brown I fats. I can eat I. Lemon I. LOPEZ All right. NEVITT Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd Madam President, I.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes Council Bill 312 has been amended. Councilman Sussman, your motion to amend Council Bill 319.
Speaker 6: Yes. And thank you for your patience. Madam President, we actually need to amend these each separately. We can't amend them in a bloc. I move that council bill 319 be amended in the following particulars on page one, line 23 strike the clerk file reference 0211b and replaced with 0211g on page one line 23 Strike the date May 28, 2015 and replace with June eight, 2015.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Council on Assessment.
Speaker 6: The purpose of amending this particular one and one of the reasons why we have to take these out separately is so a little bit of difference. It's in reference to the updated city clerk file number in conjunction with proposed 2015 changes to amend Chapter 59 Revised Municipal Code and amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code and Council Bill 298. The only changes to the actual text of the code are to reflect that the amended and restated code takes effect on July six, not June 19th, and that the primary building form standards two structures containing two unit dwelling uses shall apply to two unit dwelling uses, legally established and maintained after July 10th, 2015, not June 25th, 2015.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Secretary. Roll call, please.
Speaker 5: Sussman. Brooks Brown. Hi, Fats. Carnage, I. Lopez.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: Nevitt, I. Ortega, Rob Shepherd, I. Madam President.
Speaker 3: Hi, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes Council Bill 319 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, your motion to amend 322.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I move the Council Bill 320 to be amended. In the following particulars, I move to amend Council Bill 1503 to 2 as follows On page one, line 22, strike the clerk file reference 0211 dash si and replace with 0211-8h on page one line 20 to strike the date May 28, 2015 and replace with June eight, 2015.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of the House. Councilman Fox, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 6: Go right ahead. Councilman, the purpose of amending Council Bill 322 is to reference an updated city clerk file number in conjunction with proposed 2015 changes to amend Chapter 59, Revise Municipal Code and amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code in Council 298. The only change to the actual text of the code is an update to footers that said the code was effective June 19th. This needs to change because the code will now be effective July six.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 1: Roll call.
Speaker 5: SUSSMAN Hi. BROOKS Hi. Brown I futz. I can each layman. LEMON I'm sorry. LOPEZ All right. Nevett ORTEGA Rob Shepherd, Madam President.
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes Council Bill 322 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, your motion to amend Council Bill 324.
Speaker 6: And and I did ask the attorneys that we could do this all at once, but we couldn't. Thank you. Madam President, I move that council bill 324 be amended in the following particulars on page one, line 24 Strike the clerk file reference 2015 dash 0211-d and replace with 2015 0211-1 on page one line 24 Strike the date May 28, 2015 and replace with June eight, 2015.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council.
Speaker 6: Councilwoman Sussman This is a very similar one. It just needs to change the footers, the dates that are in the footers.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 5: SUSSMAN Brooks Brown. Fats, I can eat. Lemon. Lopez Hi. NEVITT Hi. Ortega Rob Shepherd. I'm Madam President, I.
Speaker 3: Close the voting and announce the results, please.
Speaker 5: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes Council Bill 324 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, we need a motion to postpone final consideration with their public hearings on Monday, July 6th.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I move the final consideration of Council Bill 312 as amended. Council Bill 313 Council BOTH 319 as amended Council Bill 321 Council Bill 322 is amended council bill 323 Council Bill 324 as amended and Council Bill 325 with their public hearings be postponed to Monday, July six.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Madam Secretary, we'll have a question. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I'm sorry. I guess you didn't see my name up here. I was just trying to understand when we went through these, we didn't do anything with 313. I didn't hear that we did anything with 313. So why did we do some and not all of them? So can someone help me just understand that.
Speaker 1: Hi. Laurie Strand with the city attorney's office. These are four different text amendments. So there's three overlay districts that are being established in honey in northwest Denver. And there's also a text amendment establishing the National Western Center campus district. The associated four are the mapping of those districts, so they can't be mapped until the text is adopted. So that's what the other four are.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: But no. Well.
Speaker 3: We good? Yeah. Okay. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 5: Susman. All right. Brooks Brown fights. I can reach Lehman. Lopez All right, Nevitt. ORTEGA Rob Shepherd. SHEPARD Madam President, I.
Speaker 3: ANNOUNCER Results, please.
Speaker 5: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 3: K 12 eyes. Final consideration for Council Bill 312 Has it been amended? Council Bill 313 Council Bill 319 is amended. Council Bill 321 Council Bill 322 as amended. Council Bill 323 Council Bill 324 is amendment amended and Council Bill 325 with their public hearings and have been postponed for Monday, July 6th. Okay. Are we good? Yes. All right. All other bills are ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote. Councilman Kennish, will you please put the rest? Will you please put resolution 404 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 10: Yes, Madam President. Thank you. I move that resolution 404 be adopted.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: BROOKS Hi. Brown But I can eat Lemon. Lopez.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: Nevitt. I Ortega. I shepherd. I Susman. Hi. Madam President.
|
Bill
|
Amends a contract with Securus Technologies, Inc. for added services to the Inmate Phone system to allow for caller to leave a voicemail as well as friends and family to fund a call account. No change to contract amount (TECHS-201312032-01).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06082015_15-0302
|
Speaker 7: The estimated taxable value following redevelopment is anticipated to generate approximately $400,000 per year in net property tax increment and approximately $380,000 per year in net sales tax increment. If we were to use only these incremental tax revenues to reimburse the developer for the eligible expenses of the $6.5 million, the repayment would occur in approximately 21 years. However, the amendment to the Cooperation Agreement will allow for the incremental sales and property taxes from the Source Project, which are approximately $325,000 annually, to also be used to repay the Phase two project obligation. This combined repayment structure is expected to shorten the repayment period by approximately seven years, saving approximately $1.9 million in total tax increment reimbursement payments. The amended and restated urban redevelopment plan must continue to be in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan or Plan 2000 and its relevant supplement. Beginning with comp plan 2000, the project as an approved amendment to the plan for several citywide objectives, policies and actions in the Plan 2000, including encouraging quality infill development that offers opportunities for increased density and more amenities. And that broadens the variety of compatible uses, enhance existing business centers, and establish new business centers in a manner that offers a variety of high quality uses that support Denver's business environment, complements neighborhood residential areas, generates public revenue and creates jobs. Identify areas in which increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated. Support development of neighborhood business centers that serve adjacent residential areas in existing neighborhoods and new neighborhoods within redevelopment areas. And use public private partnerships to facilitate development and redevelopment projects that advance the city's goals and objectives. Blueprint. Denver identifies Brighton Boulevard in general and the area site specifically as an area of change where growth is to be channeled to where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs and services. With fewer and shorter auto trips situated along Brighton Boulevard, the projects as mixed use infill development are consistent with the city's goal of increasing activity along major road and transit corridors. The Source Project created new light industrial retail office and commercial space. The Phase two project furthers and complements the source project by adding a hotel, retail, light, industrial and amenity space. And approximately 300 stalls have structured parking to serve not only the patrons of the projects, but also neighborhood users. The projects together will create a cohesive space that will enhance the existing restaurant and urban marketplace environment, a destination hotel to foster tourism in the River North area, which will catalyze existing and new retail establishments and businesses. The River North Plan states that Brighton Boulevard corridor can become an attractive gateway to downtown Denver from I-70 and calls for the creation of a dynamic and compatible mixture of uses that serves and takes advantage of proximity to downtown and access to I-70. The Phase two project is ideally suited to forward the vision, purpose and goals layout laid out in the River North Plan, including the following. Promoting economic activity. Reactivating a vacant and underutilized site on Brighton Boulevard. Build upon the unique land uses that exist and identify redevelopment sites and opportunities that foster the creation of a compatible mix of uses. Add new development to the current uses and structures, creating a unique environment, both in terms of an eclectic mix of uses and exciting, innovative infrastructure. Encourage land uses that effectively increase the day and nighttime population of the area, providing the impetus for future commercial development. The 38th and Blake Station area plan states that the Brighton corridor is envisioned to have more intense development, with a greater mixture of commercial and employment uses and taller building heights than the area south of the station. The Phase two project furthers a number of objectives at the 38th and Blake Station Area Plan. The Station Area Plan acknowledged that more intense development, taller building heights and a greater mixture of commercial and employment uses are appropriate along the Brighton Boulevard corridor. It also recognized that the Brighton Corridor section of the station area north of the U.P. tracks is envisioned to have more intense development with a greater mixture of commercial and employment uses and taller building heights than the area south of the station. And finally, it noted that Brighton Boulevard is also the front door to the River North District. It should be a place where pedestrians find interesting shops and galleries and feel welcome to walk or visit. The general objectives of this urban redevelopment plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions and to stimulate the continued growth and development of the urban redevelopment area. The Phase two project meets the following objectives of the amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan to renew and improve the character and environment of the Urban Redevelopment Area and its surroundings by preventing or ameliorating economic, physical and environmental deterioration. To eliminate the present and growing factors which contribute to the blight in the urban redevelopment area. Such blighting factors are detrimental to the community and represent an economic liability to the city. To more effectively use underdeveloped land within the urban redevelopment area. To build to build upon present economic strengths near the urban redevelopment area. To encourage and protect existing development immediately adjoining the urban redevelopment area. By creating conditions from which these adjoining areas can draw new economic strength to improve the economy of the area by stabilizing and upgrading property values to enhance the current sales tax base and property tax base within the city. By stimulating the growth in assessed valuation and sales tax collections within the Urban Redevelopment Area to provide access to employment opportunities for low income and unemployed Denver residents. To create a local business climate that serves the neighborhood so that area residents can shop in the neighborhood, which could enhance city air quality improvement efforts. And finally, to carry out the objectives of the Plan 2000. In addition to making the finding of blight, council must also make other findings required by the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. These findings include that a feasible method exists for relocation of displaced individuals and families and business concerns. No individuals or families will be displaced from dwelling units as a result of adoption or implementation of the amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, no relocation plan is necessary for individuals or families. Similarly, no business concerns will be displaced as a result of adoption or implementation of the amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, no relocation plan is necessary for business concerns. 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 Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment area at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. No more than 120 days have passed since the commencement of the public hearing before City Council on the plan. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on the amended and restated Urban Redevelopment Plan. The amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan contains no property that was included in a previously submitted urban redevelopment plan that Council failed to approve. Conformance with with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. On May 20th, 2015, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the amended and restated urban redevelopment plan conforms with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and its applicable supplements. A letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. The plan provides maximum opportunity for redevelopment by private enterprise. 3330 Brighton Boulevard, LLC currently owns the Phase two parcel and is prepared to undertake the project. The school district number one in the city and county of Denver has been permitted to participate in an advisory capacity concerning the use of tax increment. Denver Public Schools has been consulted and has provided a letter of support for the amended and restated plan and the use of tax increment financing. A copy of this letter has been submitted as part of the record of this public hearing. Finally, the city and county of Denver can adequately finance or agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve redevelopment within the amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Area for the period during which incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and Doura to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. In closing, the Denver Urban Renewal Authority is pleased to bring forward this amended and restated urban redevelopment plan to facilitate the full redevelopment of the area. As I mentioned earlier, the Source Project, which has been very successful, created new light industrial retail office and commercial activities along Brighton Boulevard. The Phase two project furthers and complements the source project by adding a hotel, retail, light, industrial and amenity space as well as structured parking to serve not only the patrons of the projects but also the broader neighborhood. These projects together will create a cohesive space that will enhance the existing restaurant and urban marketplace environment. A destination hotel will foster tourism to the River North area, which in turn will catalyze existing and new retail establishments and businesses and continue to support the city's vision for this important corridor. We ask for your favorable consideration of this amended and restated urban redevelopment plan, and I will be happy to answer questions when the time is appropriate.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Huggins. I'm going to call the four speakers that we have. First speaker is Kyle Zeppelin, second speaker McKee Zeppelin, third speaker Jason Caplan and fourth speaker Justin Croft.
Speaker 4: No. Thank you, Madam President. And members of council. My name is Kyle Zeppelin from Zeppelin Development. Address is 3457 Rigsby Court in Denver. Just wanted to provide some more background on the project. The source, as Tracy mentioned, is hopefully a good, good addition to the community in Reno and Denver. It includes it's basically a new version of an old idea, a public market and includes a butcher, a baker, a brewer, a couple acclaimed restaurants. The goal is to create a compatible flow of people that supports all the businesses and hopefully a great experience. At the same time, the opportunity with the neighboring site is really to expand on on the success of the project and how well it's been received. There's what we're doing on that side is basically adding 300 structured parking spaces, which is kind of a necessary evil to be able to provide that. The reality is that people do drive and try to accommodate that. There's we're basically doubling the size of the market. HALL So it's a modern form of what you see at the source. A lot of complementary functions there. We have a kitchen store. There's a significant amount of makerspace. So there is a ceramicist, there's pie making. And that's that is really combining basically the production elements with the experience and getting to know some, some of the people behind the products. So not having things just show up on your plate or in your glass, but actually having that become part of the experience. There's a major art component and then we're also including a major feature of the project is the hotel function. So it's a 100, 100 room hotel. It reflects a lot of the same design sensibilities. There's glass, garage doors and rooms. He experienced the light and and the views, but also be able to open up to the fresh air, a different kind of design than is typical. The whole character of the place is really drawing, drawing on what you see throughout the neighborhood. It's independent, it's local, it's creative. And they go with with the hotel. The market hall is to really be able to the in the expansion is to be able to reach a much broader audience, more of a national, international audience, to want to come experience some of the more interesting things, interesting people throughout the region. So appreciate your your consideration of the project and happy to answer any questions. Thanks very.
Speaker 3: Much. Thank you. Our next speaker, Micki Zeppelin.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam President, and members of Council. Thanks for another opportunity to speak to you. I've been involved in Rhino for some 15 years, and with the support of council and particularly Council President Monteiro, we were able to do the source and open in 2013. That project has really been a transformative project, I think. Tracy mentioned some of them, some of the assets, but it's really changed the neighborhood. And last week you heard on the bid and the give and I think it's as a gathering place, it was largely responsible for those things happening. It was really a place for community and has really become part of really the city environment. It's really created a a real place in the city. And I think with this new iteration, we're moving toward not only a place for the city, but really a national place. The hotel really is a unique kind of place that doesn't and won't exist in any other city. And I think you're going to see lots of travelers and nationally and internationally come to the source of this project. And it's really an important part of National Western. We've talked about National Western as appealing to the tourist. Also with a great art community. We're going to see really people attracted to Denver and to this arts community. And I think it adds significantly to the prestige of Denver, and I'm pleased to be part of it and.
Speaker 8: Hope you will support us. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Jason Kaplan, followed by Justin Croft.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President and members of the city council. I'm Jason Kaplan, and I've been involved in commercial and residential development since about 2002 in Colorado and nationally. I represent River North Investment Partners and I am partners and co-developer with the Zeppelins on this project. It's been interesting and a lot of fun to work with the Zeppelins because they they as as you witnessed with the source, they have a specific vision that is very unique to real estate development. And in conjunction with that, they are really great at getting things done when there is a challenging project. And I really respect that. It's really good to be their team member. In addition to them, another very important team member is the group behind the St Julian in Boulder.
Speaker 8: And they are our operating partner.
Speaker 4: And one thing that's great about them, well, there's a bunch of things, but one thing specifically is their local. Another thing is they they understand the the superior quality of hospitality that's needed to function a hotel at the highest level. And then the last thing that I'd like to mention is they have a joint vision with us or together where they see the opportunity to provide a unique, a non-corporate hotel experience in the River North neighborhood. So with the team and with with DRA, we've, we've focused on a lot of different aspects for the development, but a few I'd like to specifically point out are to maximize the zoning of 12 stories. You typically are seeing one, two, five story buildings and, and in hopes of your support, we'll be able to utilize that zoning. Another thing is the 300 space parking structure in an area where you typically see surface parking lots. Another thing that the project will do is enable regional stormwater project. And then last but not least, and maybe the the most important is it really creates a dynamic project in the area in River North and on Brighton, which everybody really wants to see. And I, I'm available for questions when the time time is and I appreciate your support and, and I hope for your consideration or I appreciate your consideration and hope for your support. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Justin Croft.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President, and members of Council. My name is Justin Croft.
Speaker 13: And I am here with Zeppelin Development. I was project manager on the sauce and I'm serving as project manager on this project in front of you today. I was here last week to ask for your support on the Rhino bid and the gig, and just want to say thank you again for your support on that project. The vision that's been spoken about today, I just want to reiterate for this project is that it really is a highly public project and a project that we believe speaks to a lot of the values of the neighborhood, which I've had the good fortune to really understand closely in my work with the Steering Committee on the bid of the guide and doing some work with the art district as well. Just to briefly mention a few of the items that we believe that this project supports as far as the values of the neighborhood, one that it activates the street contributes to vibrancy in the district in that way, that it attracts small and supports small and creative businesses, which is really a vision that we have to attract and support independent businesses. A lot of makers in this project, and we believe that with the hotel component there will be even added support and people seeking out these specific independent businesses. It's a development that supports biking, walking and use of transit in the district being what will be a very active node, even more so than it is today in close proximity to the 38th and Blake Station and really supporting multimodal use. Also, with travelers coming from the airport and being able to utilize the hotel, we also believe that it maintains some of the gritty character of the area while working to enhance its livability. And you'll see there are a lot of kind of gritty elements with the architecture. Hard to read from this rendering, but they include use of recycled concrete, use of corrugated metal and some of the other things that up development has been known for. And then also, of course, contributing to a.
Speaker 4: Regional parking solution for.
Speaker 13: Right now. So thank you very much and asking for your support today.
Speaker 3: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions for members of council?
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam President. So I think one of your last points, Justin, is something that I want to hone in on. So we're talking about 305 parking spaces in the structured parking lot. And so that was my question.
Speaker 5: Is it meant.
Speaker 1: To serve just the new development or the source? And then you talked about a regional solution just then. So if you all could collaborate or elaborate on that, that would be helpful. Yeah.
Speaker 13: So that parking garage is certainly larger than we would have built parking for this project. So the idea is that it really is publicly available to people who would like to park there and walk in and, you know, travel, visit throughout the district as well as the patrons.
Speaker 4: Specifically visiting the project.
Speaker 5: How many spaces are actually.
Speaker 1: Required for the project itself?
Speaker 13: 150.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's doubling. So I recall in when we went through budget hearings last year, there was funds appropriated, I thought, for curb and gutter.
Speaker 5: In this.
Speaker 1: Year's budget on Brighton Boulevard. Is that true? And if that's true, like when does that commence?
Speaker 9: It's a silly question.
Speaker 1: Or is that a silly question?
Speaker 4: Thank you. My name's Andrew Johnston with I'm the manager of financial development for the Department of Finance. Your question was in regards to when with the construction commence on Brighton Boulevard, with the street and the curb and gutter as it's projected to start in first quarter of 2017.
Speaker 1: So I'm assuming that's before when this project would commence. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Or after.
Speaker 7: If it should be approved?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. No. 2016 is when the construction is supposed to commence.
Speaker 1: Oh, I see. Okay. And then I just want to ask a couple of questions. Is there bus service on Brighton Boulevard going up that way? Okay. And then I recall also as part of that carbon gutter that there would be bike lanes. Are those going to be built in 2016, first quarter as well?
Speaker 4: So the reconstruction is scheduled to commence in 2016 and the plan is for redoing the entire street curb gutter and it will include bike lanes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And then just finally, a quick comment. I've never heard somebody say that they actually had grittiness as a value. I think that's a very interesting urban design concept. I hope to hear more.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Shepherd, Councilman Fox.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for Tracy. Tracy, in the materials that we received. We talked about the tax increments. It said available at stabilization. I presume that's when it's built out and getting the full amount.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 11: Would you would you translate for me what you intend to get toward this project? I presume the 6,970,000 is the problem. That's what you're solving for. Is that.
Speaker 1: Correct?
Speaker 7: The if I may. Let me see if I can find the the gap is 6.5 million. That is what I'll refer to as the principle of the gap. And then so what happens in a reimbursement structure is that that it redevelop or is responsible for still financing those costs. And then the tax increment is used to repay that obligation over time as the tax increment comes in with interest. Okay. So the 6.9 million councilwoman that was on the slide that had the various costs. That is a summary of the type of costs that we would be looking to reimburse. Again, the lion's share of that is the the parking garage.
Speaker 11: Would you tell me how much money do you intend to put toward this project? That comes, first of all, from the property taxes that it actually has involved in its lot. Then how much in the sales tax? I have the annual, but I don't have the total. And then how much you intend to contribute from the adjacent lot? And then tell me what percentage of public money is going to go toward the whole project?
Speaker 7: That was a lot of questions. Let's see if I can get them all in order.
Speaker 11: Well, they all deal with my favorite subject money.
Speaker 7: Mine too. So the amount of property tax increment that is expected to be generated from the phase two project. So the parking garage, the additional retail in the hotel is $400,000 per year. The sales tax increment from again the hotel project is projected to be $380,000 per year. And then the amount that is currently being collected from the Source Project, which is the number that I have with me this evening, is a combined sales and property tax is 325,000.
Speaker 11: But I want the total of what you are planning in each one of those lines to contribute. Because what I don't have is the number of years you are expecting each to contribute to the project. Sure.
Speaker 7: So on the source project, it will be that $325,000 per year starting in 2018, 2019 and going through 2024. That is after the source obligation is repaid and then it allows for that $325,000 or so per year to also be paid to to this project. All of that will be paid to it. The other two amounts, the 400,000 and the 380,000 in property and sales tax increment respectively will begin being paid as soon as it is being generated. So as the project is under construction and is completed, it will begin to generate that tax increment. It will be paid as soon as it is available, even in advance of the amounts coming from the source project. Because again, we have that period of time before the source project is repaid. To then be able to put all of these sources together for a hope for expected repayment in about 14 years from now.
Speaker 11: But you don't have it broken out according to the source of where it's coming from. No pun intended of the source. The actual line item there.
Speaker 7: So I apologize, Councilman. I'm not following the the question there.
Speaker 11: So I just jump to the last question. What percentage of this whole project are you intending to use? Public tax sources, meaning all of those that you've just talked about, those are all taxes that would have gone into the general fund per se. What? Well, actually, now they some of them would have gone into the school district, but they would have all been public tax sources. What percentage are you intending to use for this $41 million project?
Speaker 7: The six and a half million dollars is about 16%.
Speaker 1: Of the total project budget. Okay.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Fox, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: And a person that. Oh, no. So my first question is for Kyle, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. It wasn't clear from the drawings if parking will continue on the source property or if you're looking to build out the whole front part of that. Assuming that the garage is going to be enough to park both both properties, both structures.
Speaker 4: So the intent is for the source property for that parking to remain intact. We would go ahead and repave the parking lot that would serve as basically short term parking to serve the source. Right. And then the structured parking would serve basically the surrounding neighborhood, including both hotel and the source.
Speaker 7: How many spaces do you have on the source site?
Speaker 4: The source is currently approximately 50, but 50 surface parking spaces. Plus, we use the neighboring lot as as kind of overflow parking.
Speaker 7: And how many do you have on that site?
Speaker 4: Approximately 150 spaces over there.
Speaker 7: Okay. I had one other question, and this is more I don't know if we have anybody from the planning department that was involved in looking at the project. I don't see anybody. Okay. Then I'm going to ask you this question. Tracy and Kyle, you may want to chime in as well. We've been working with the Planning Department and our Office of Emergency Management in looking at just some design issues around developments adjacent to railroad land, where we have consistently railcars that are not always necessarily compatible with either residential or largely populated areas. And I don't know if this is something that has come up so that in the design, looking at how we protect human life in the event that there might be some kind of incident on the rail corridor. I know, for example, in the past we've had various incidents where, you know, some of the residents have had to be evacuated and in so I don't know how much that is part of the thinking in terms of how are we addressing any potential. I know, Kyle, you talked about roll up windows. So can you just speak to that a little bit?
Speaker 4: So the the site layout has the parking structure at the back of the site. So that effectively creates a buffer where there's emergency access all around it. So we've basically tried with we're meeting all the requirements for life safety in that way. Another consideration is trains are a fact of life. And right now, um, at taxi we have uh, 20 acres down the street mixed use project that's gotten some acclaim and there's 20 or 30 bands of tracks. In some ways we talk about grittiness, but it really it adds to the ambiance. It is something that people are attracted to. It's not as polished as maybe more established parts of town, but there's a certain amount of creative freedom that you get in a neighborhood like this that isn't necessarily possible in other parts of the city.
Speaker 7: So I think you answered the question by talking about the parking garage being the buffer. So I appreciate that. All my other questions have been asked by previous colleagues, so yield to them. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, some of the questions were asked around the regional parking. Kyle, I believe I know the answer to this, but I'm going to have you. You're still encouraging multi-modal options on your site, though, correct?
Speaker 4: Absolutely. We're intending to max out the count for bike parking. We're just a few blocks away from the new Rhino's state, the new station. And right now, that's that includes a bridge connection. That's a connection between the neighborhoods. So the goal is for people to leave their cars behind, whether it's in our parking structure or somewhere else, circulate throughout the neighborhoods, support local business, and hopefully have a great experience along the way.
Speaker 9: Yeah, you know, this regional park, it is important for folks coming outside the area like these fine folks here and Chris Moore may be coming to enjoy, but we want folks within that vicinity to ride their bike or walk or catch a ride or something. The zip cars and all those. You still have parking for that, right? Smart cars.
Speaker 4: So yeah, we have some extensive we have dedicated car to go spaces over at the source. Okay, but we'll scale up to address the new development.
Speaker 9: Great. Okay, Tracy. Just a big, big, hairy question for you. So recently at the state, as quick as last week, the governor signed into law HB 15 1348, which impacts Dora Urban renewal authorities and tax increment financing projects. And it's a it's called a fairness bill. And I'm just wondering, there's a lot of speculations on how this bill may affect projects like these that are coming through. But I'm wondering how this bill you can speculate how this bill might affect this project.
Speaker 7: I don't believe it will affect this project at all. And I. With one eye watch, said David Broadwell. As I as I'm talking through this the bill it was just signed by the governor and it becomes law effective August 5th of this year. So the action taking taken tonight clearly will be well in advance of that. The other requirements of the bill don't then come into actual effect until projects undertaken on or after January 1st of 2016. So this project being approved now being a really the the final project, final piece of this urban renewal area, we do not see there being any impact of 1348 on this project.
Speaker 9: Okay. So I'll let it go because we got a long night tonight. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Robb, followed by Councilwoman Lehman.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Madam President. I'm hung up on parking questions as well. Sort of like Councilwoman Shepherd, because we both represent districts where our folks are crying for parking and very disturbed, at least about a perceived, if not real, lack of parking in new projects. So my first question on the parking is the garage parking that's financed a great deal by the tax increment. Will it be free parking or paid parking?
Speaker 4: Very. Thanks for the question. So the goal with with the parking is, is to really enhance the flow of people. We do have the ability to charge for parking. We have a surface lot now that we don't charge for specifically for that purpose. So really, you know, the intent is to offer the first couple of hours for free and then be able to kind of keep the costs down from there. It will be to an extent, market driven. Um, but we're not the, the parking to a large degree waits down the project economically, which is part of the parking.
Speaker 12: Always waits down projects, doesn't it?
Speaker 4: It does, especially in this case, because there there isn't a street grid, there isn't an alley. So there's basically, you know, no outlet really to put it. So it really kind of increases the burden to to do do a little bit more.
Speaker 12: Okay. So my next question is for Tracy Huggins. So we did something similar at the Loewenstein in the parking garage that was free parking. How do we legitimize using tax increment to build parking that people are paying for or.
Speaker 7: Are not paying.
Speaker 1: For.
Speaker 12: Or are paying for at some level after 2 hours or in the future could be charged.
Speaker 7: So remember that the primary objective of our involvement is to eliminate the blighting conditions in a way that is consistent with an outcome that the city is looking for. So we take the project as it is presented to us, which in this case is the combination of the hotel, the parking and the the other retail space. And then within that, once we have identified what the financing gap is, we then look for those public purpose costs that we can then reimburse. Parking is clearly one of those because it is a a use that is necessary to support the project by the public to be able to come and enjoy the project. So in saying that we are paying for the parking is true because that is the most obvious public purpose cost in there and it is the cost that is creating the financing gap in this project, just as it was a cost that was creating the financing gap in the loan scheme.
Speaker 12: Okay. So other developers that aren't getting TIFF are required to build a certain amount of parking. How do we legitimize building twice that amount on the public dollar?
Speaker 7: So this again goes to the the emerging development along this corridor. And so that was one of the things that was important for us, as well as for the city administration when they were evaluating this project that this was going to be parking in excess of what the project itself required because there is additional development occurring along this corridor and having a reservoir of parking to be able to basically serve those overflow needs.
Speaker 12: Will there be parking on this street as it's designed? When Brighton is built out.
Speaker 4: Yes. I'm trying to recall the designs.
Speaker 12: And it was like it was.
Speaker 4: I don't. There's limited parking if there is some parking. But I don't think there's much street parking.
Speaker 12: We know if it will be metered or free.
Speaker 4: I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 12: Okay. And finally, this is a question maybe for Sky Stuart or the administration. I believe that we invested in the in DC see capital improvement projects, $44 million in our 2015 budget summit. There were lots of different uses of that. But how much of that was infrastructure investment in this area?
Speaker 1: That's a great question. I don't remember the total amount off the top of my head that went specifically to infrastructure. You're right, there were different.
Speaker 7: Components in there, including some park uses and some.
Speaker 1: Street uses for Brighton Boulevard. But I can get you that breakdown.
Speaker 12: And 44 million is about four times our annual discretionary IP, is that correct?
Speaker 1: That sounds right. And I think it was 47 million. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: That's one, Rob. I'm done. Oh, thank you, Councilwoman Lehman.
Speaker 1: Yes. I don't know who to ask this question.
Speaker 11: For, but you.
Speaker 1: Said there was a storm water project as part of this because somebody explained that to me. And also talk about the relationship.
Speaker 11: Between.
Speaker 1: This project and seeing that the.
Speaker 11: Light rail that's there is out of the floodplain.
Speaker 4: Sure. So there's a stormwater outfall that serves the Montclair Basin. It runs through the neighborhood that takes up approximately 30 feet off one side of the site. So there's basically construction on that stormwater pipe that's occurring simultaneously with the project, construction that we've been able to work with public works and come up with a phased approach where it basically works for everybody. So it creates some inefficiencies for land use to have that taking up a significant area. We've been able to work together to come up with a solution and organize the construction so that it's compatible.
Speaker 1: To what year are you building it to the.
Speaker 12: 100 year flood.
Speaker 11: Or the five year flood or what are you.
Speaker 4: So that the project meets all the requirements for stormwater with both water quality and detention? So I think that's not particularly in a flood zone, but the stormwater pipe in question is really originates in a couple neighborhoods over and then it runs through the neighborhood. So basically serves a neighbor, some neighborhoods more in Montclair, basically further east, it just runs through the neighborhood. So it was in their capital budget. They had a pretty tight schedule to be able to work with RTG on the construction. So we're able to work together to to accommodate that. Okay.
Speaker 11: I would just like more information about that.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Just a follow up question. Excuse me. On this particular point related to the stormwater, this is a project that came to committee last week, and I'm not making the connection between the project. Is the project being asked to offset any costs towards that? Or help me understand how the Montclair Basin and the Parkville Basin project that we have moving through the city now that moved out of committee last week.
Speaker 4: For different the different.
Speaker 7: Interfaces with this project.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Brooks wants to take a shot at your.
Speaker 9: This is this is totally different project. This is a 33/33 Street outfall. What we were talking about in committee was a larger regional Park Hill Basin and Montclair Basin. So.
Speaker 7: Okay. I'd like to learn a little bit more about the difference between the two, because I know that for the Montclair Basin, we were we're actually moving a major project forward that deals with that in the Parkville Basin. So. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Any other questions from members of council? Team, then the public hearing is closed. Councilwoman Fox, you rang in where?
Speaker 11: You just want to comment time.
Speaker 1: Okay, great.
Speaker 3: Same with you, Councilwoman Ross. Yes. Brooks okay. Thank you. I'll I'll go ahead and allow for other people to speak before me. This project is in my current district, but let's go ahead and start with Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 11: Madam President, I'd be glad to defer to you as the council person. Mayor, so let me come second.
Speaker 3: Okay. Councilwoman Robb, I agree.
Speaker 12: Go ahead. And then you can speak after us to.
Speaker 3: I'm good to Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 9: You know, I'm not going to help you.
Speaker 3: All right. Okay. I will speak. So it just seems like yesterday that we were dealing with the major issues on this property when it was loaded with empty truck trailers and crime and illegal dumping and pollution. And I'll even throw some graffiti in there. So I want to say that I'm very excited to see the transformation on this property come so quickly and have a clear and progressive vision. The original project of the source has been an anchor for economic growth along Brighton and it's great. The next level is able to continue in the creation of the hotel market and a production hub that will continue to make River North or Rhino an innovative engine for Denver. I think through the years that I worked here and firmly believe that this project complements the momentum happening in Reno and also the attraction that we will have to the future National Western Center and also the development for this area. So I am 100% supporting this going forward, and I would ask that my colleagues support this effort as well. So. Next one up is councilman fights.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Madam President. I agree with much of what the proponents have said. This area is blighted. Certainly the Zeppelin and his group do excellent work, supported many of the projects they've had, including the tax increment financing on the first block that's now being absorbed into this. So there's a lot that I like and I have no objection to having a hotel there. But I am not going to be supporting this tonight. First of all, when you consider the financing charges, Tracy, based on what you said, the public will be putting in 17% of the project very close. I take a look and I want you to envision. Two squares. They showed it on the on the screen. But in vision square, a convention square B, square A was the first project. And that was one where I actually did vote for some tax increment financing for and that was the original source. And that's just about to be paid off in 2018. And the usual idea of tax increment financing is that you build a project and then after you have had some of that increment helping to build the project, then that money goes back to the originating tax sources such as the school, such as city funds, mean it's a way to also invest in our future with this project. They want to build a hotel, a private hotel. This is not a public project. This is a privately owned hotel. And they don't have enough money in tax increment, sales tax, the property tax coming off that part of square B where the hotel is going to be built to finish it off in the time frame that they feel is economically viable. So they're going to go back and absorb block A so that the money doesn't come to the tax sources, to the schools, to the city. It's going to be used. Now, in addition to those things that are being generated by BLOCK B, to pay 17% of this private hotel and parking, which I'm now discovering may have some charges connected to it. This, to me is not the role of tax money to to build a private hotel. And so as I look around, I feel this one is off the mark. If they wanted to do it privately, I'd be all in favor of it. But to use tax money in there, I am not convinced it's that blighted, that particular just square of cement. And so I will not be supporting this project.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilman Rob.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem.
Speaker 4: That was before that.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I'm struggling with this a little bit tonight. I definitely agree that making Zeppelin Kill Zeppelin are visionary developers without their vision. Literally, the Zeppelin vision, Cherry Creek, the Golden Triangle, and now the Brighton Boulevard Reno area definitely wouldn't be the same.
Speaker 1: But.
Speaker 12: And it not but but and we are legitimately putting considerable dollars for infrastructure into this area, as my questions indicated. And it's it's very exciting. But when we add to the infrastructure dollars we're already putting into their tax increment for parking, we are further investing in an infrastructure for the area beyond the project, beyond this project. And Endura projects have a but for argument, but for this money they couldn't happen. And yet we are over parking. The other side of that is, Hey, terrific, it's great when we have a chance and we have the land that we can provide an innovative parking solution. But the consequent is consequent is that areas that need parking and are paying considerable sales tax to the general fund and do not get sales or property tax relief are disproportionately contributing to the infrastructure in this area and in the areas where parking is in such demand. It's because there's not a lot of land up here. At least we have land. So this solution can't innovatively be transferred very easily to other areas. So I am just scratching my head on this one. But if I do vote no as I listen to the rest of the comments, I think you can understand my reservation. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. More than a decade ago, when I was a greenhorn, city council member does take a while to relinquish that title, I guess. Greenhorn. But anyway, I toured Brighton Boulevard, spent about a half a day there and I came away with one simple thought and that was that. This really isn't Brighton Boulevard. It's barbed wire boulevard. So I personally changed the name. And after that tour, if someone would have told me that in the final weeks of my campaign excuse me, of my service on this council, that there would be a hotel proposed for Brighton Boulevard. I would have told them that there were smoking local weed and now you be able to get both from Brighton Boulevard. But I am excited, as you are, about this project and Micky and Kel, especially Micky, thank you for your vision because this place, frankly, when I thought it was an embarrassment and we had the taxis coming down from DIA and that was their entrance to our city and it's changing and it will continue to change. And it's no longer Barbwire Boulevard, it's Brighton Boulevard. And you should be proud of what you've done because we are very grateful. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brown. Councilman Kennish.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Madam President, I am supportive of the project that's been described. But I chimed in to, in response to Councilman Rob's question, because one of the things being a long time follower of tax increment financing from long before I was elected, we had an evolution in state law where originally project dollars could only be used on the project site. And, you know, several years back, the legislature changed that and allowed for them to be used for the betterment of the area, including outside the immediate site. So if you were to think I get the question about the additional parking being independent from the project, but in theory nothing would stop us from actually coming forward with a proposal just like we did in the downtown area. TIFF If you remember, you know, thinking about using sources outside the area for this. So if we if we had the hotel as one project, nothing would stop us from having a proposal to use some of that increment for a parking garage should it be needed . So in my mind I, I have a pretty strict view of the, but for analysis as well. And, but what we could do in two swoops we can do and one is, is my view of this so that if we believe that these parking spots are necessary and we do have the opportunity to do them and they are worthy of our investment, it should not matter necessarily that they're being packaged with the 150 that are necessarily required for the hotel. I you know, so there's an efficiency in my mind to doing something together that we could have done separately. And it doesn't necessarily get to the deeper part of your question regarding overall city resources, which is is one that I share, frankly, in terms of, you know, this council for two years advocating for a greater amount of staffing and dollars for infrastructure in areas experiencing change. And, you know, we get some positions and some investment in those areas, but we continue to need to advocate for that in this upcoming budget cycle. So I do believe, however, that we can't miss an opportunity this time limited, right. So that this land will not be available if we don't seize it now, because we can see the pace of change happening in Brighton as well. So it seems prudent to me to, to go forward while we have the opportunity, I would strongly urge just to be charging for the parking because I think that we know if you build it and it's free, then people will come. They won't make the choices that you've described. You've described a process by which you want people to think about taking a bike and think about taking transit. They won't go through that exercise if it's really free and easy. And we should make parking available for those who need it as residents. But for those who have those other options, I do think that it behooves us to think smartly about how we use this resource that we're investing in. But I will be supporting the project tonight as well as, you know, this component of it that's been called into question. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. So this is my old council district and I can remember when many of these warehouses on Brighton Boulevard were used for raves. We often had the police down there. You know, it was not the thriving area that it is today. And there's been a lot of work and a lot of investment in the part of many different individuals and businesses in this in this area. I've been to the source on numerous occasions and both parking lots are always full. So Kyle, when you said basically we have 200 parking spaces there today and and almost all of them were utilized during your busiest times in the evenings, sometimes during lunch hour on weekends. So I think until we have the infrastructure in place, that makes it easier and more convenient for alternative means of transportation, biking to the site . It's not really safe to bike on Brighton Boulevard right now. There are no curbs, no no real bike lanes that are safe. I mean, people are kind of taking their hands and their lives, their lives in their own hands by by trying to ride on this corridor, especially with some of the big truck traffic. And so I think the need for that many parking spaces is warranted, especially given the fact that you're going to add that much more commercial space on the site, you know, the hotel with 100 rooms and an additional element to the project. So it's absolutely going to be needed and. Over time, we will see more and more people biking to the site and using light rail. Once it's open, actually, there will be commuter rail on that stop. Yeah. Um, but I think in general, this is a great project. We knew that when you did the source that this other site, which you all had purchased, was going to be coming next. And we weren't sure exactly what all that was going to entail. But to see a hotel there, I think it will absolutely be utilized. And again, with the proximity to national western and the kinds of changes that were we're seeing come about for that, I just think this is a great project and look forward to, you know, the opportunity to see all the other new things that will be there. So I will be supporting this tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is exciting to be able to take take on this district starting on July 20th. And I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for being in the wild, wild west. I think Councilman Brown called it barbed wire street, but this is the wild, wild west out there. And, you know, to have a council person advocating for these kind of projects means a lot and not to the to the folks on the private side. And so I appreciate that. You know, if you have not been on Brighton recently or in the past, I invite you to go and I invite you to go because Brighton is in the middle of a renaissance, an incredible transformation. If it's if it's not smart, it will lose its edginess, it will lose its grittiness, it will lose all that cool factor. But people go there for those specific issues. They like the gritty. They like for whatever reason, no street lights, no curb and gutter, nowhere to park your car. They like that. And that's what makes it cool. And I just want to commend, number one, the Zeppelins for being told what they couldn't do. I didn't ask them this question. But there are folks in the hotel industry who do not believe that a hotel is viable and bright and I'm putting my money on the Zeppelins just because taxi one and two I never thought would make it years ago. On the other side of the river, when. When Brighton wasn't even hot. And so these. These folks really invest and put their money where their mouth is with nothing, no infrastructure at all. In the middle of one of the worst basins in the city today, Montclair and Park Hill basis, but yet they're putting in investment. And so I, I am excited to support this project. And, you know, I believe that. And just shake my head. Shake your head, Tracy, if I'm right or this is all this is our property tax you're using our property tax are using sales tax and property say, okay, so there is a lodgers tax that still will be recouped and is coming to the city. Correct. And so, you know, Councilman Futz is is you know, when we have this conversation, she is always keen on the financials, but I always want her to talk about the other side of the equation, too. And what what else is this property generating for the city? It's not a zero sum. We're just losing money. We're actually gaining tax increment from this area as well. That is going back to the general fund. And I think it's important to realize that. And although it's, you know, it's just 100 rooms, I can guarantee you these rooms are going to be for most of the year. And I think that's important. So, you know, I will be supporting this. This is just we will also be building a bridge to connect with the 38th and Blake Station, which will just be on the back of this building as a city. And so if folks who are coming from DIA do not want to stay at the hotel, that that we're building it right there at DIA or they don't want to come to Union Station now. They have one room hotel and one of the coolest arts arts district in the country. And so I'm excited to support this. And I want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro, I think the Zeppelins. For their courage and for their vision and putting this project together. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Fats.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to clarify one thing that was said. It is not the intention of the administration and potentially the intention of this council to have the lodgers tax that is being generated or future generated from this project or from any other project to go into the general fund. If there will be an issue going to the people, most likely if this council sends it to the people to use the lodgers tax for the stock show and that area. So it is not something that would be going into the general fund.
Speaker 9: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 3: How many books do you want to respond? And we also have a comment from Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: You know, me and Councilwoman Fox can be talking all night about this issue, but, you know, they're not 100% of all of the taxes that we are recouping. Is ours going to the stock show? When that goes on, on the ballot. And so we are paying down debt. We are paying down debt for the convention center until 20 2021. Somebody can help me out there, but I just think, you know, it gets real complicated in there, but it's not all going back to the stock show.
Speaker 11: You are correct that the convention center is included in that, but it's not intended to fund filling potholes.
Speaker 3: Councilman Fox, Councilman Ortega, did you?
Speaker 7: Councilman Brooks raised my point. I was just going to ask Andrew Johnson to help us clarify that. But I think Councilman Brooks covered.
Speaker 3: Are we good? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 302.
Speaker 5: BROOKS Hi. BROWN Hi, Fats. No can eat lemon.
Speaker 4: LOPEZ All right.
Speaker 5: Nevitt I. Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd, I. Susman Madam President, I.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results tonight.
Speaker 5: Two names.
Speaker 3: Ten eyes, two nays. Council Bill 302 has passed. I also wanted to just give a minute. A request was made by Tracey Huggins from Denver Urban Renewal Authority to just take a second to make a comment.
Speaker 7: Thank you for this. A formative of personal privilege. And also let's also not forget the companion council bill for the cooperation agreement as well.
Speaker 3: Why don't why don't I go ahead and do that? Perfect. Thank you. Councilor McKinney, will you please put companion bill three or three on the floor?
Speaker 10: Thank you. Madam President, I move that council bill 303 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 11: The bill that we just passed with the tax increment and this bill are companion bills. So I'll be voting against this one as well.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Other comments by members of council CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on 303.
Speaker 5: Brooks, I. Brown I thought, how can each. Lehman I. Lopez All right. Nevitt. Ortega Hi, Rob. No. Sheppard, I. SUSMAN Madam President.
Speaker 3: All right, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Ten Eyes. Two nays.
Speaker 3: Ten Eyes. Two nays. Council Bill three. All three has passed. Okay, now I will invite Tracy Hogan's back up.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. As you know, these projects take a long time for us to put together. And this will be the last urban renewal project that we bring before this council. So on behalf of myself, the entire staff of.
Speaker 1: Dora, our.
Speaker 7: Board, I want to thank each and every one of you for your careful and thoughtful consideration of each and every one of these projects. Over the years, we have undertaken projects in almost everybody's district. And it is certainly our hope that those projects were beneficial for you and your constituents and wanted to thank you for your service . Thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay. Council Bill 56 approves a zoning map amendment. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. Councilman McKinney, will you please put Council Bill 56 on the floor?
Speaker 10: Yes, Madam President. Thank you. I move that council. The statistics be placed upon final consideration and do pass it.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brown. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 56 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 13: Madam President, Members of Council David Jaspers, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development in front of you with rezoning of 195 South Monica Parkway. This is going. The request is to go from ESU d x that's urban edge single unit with a 6000 minimum square foot lot to SMU three. It's in Council District five. In the hilltop neighborhood. And it's at the location intersection of South Monaco Parkway and Cedar Crescent. Our park is directly to the west of this location. The request is to take this property, which is just over 2.3 acres. It is currently a single story. Church property owner Cedar Metropolitan LLC is proposing a rezoning to allow multiple units of residential building on site. As I mentioned, the rezoning was for that ESU, DCS two, SMU three, SMU three is the suburban neighborhood context multi-unit with a three storey maximum height. I'll run through the existing context of the site, including the zoning, historic district and structures, transit service, land use and building performance scale. Here. You can see the zoning on site, as I mentioned. Yes, you do. To the north is a townhouse district that is actually the garages of the townhouses that are still in the are to a to the west of the site to the south is more single unit and there is SMU three along Monaco, um, to the south and of course to the west is OSA, which is the open space of Chris Moore Park itself. Uh, the historic district. The church did receive a certificate of non historic status last year, so it is clear that there is RTD Tram Transit Service nearby. Route 65 runs north south on Monica with 30 minute frequencies for most of the day and Route three runs along Alameda, one block to the south and the east west direction with 50 minute frequencies during peak periods and 30 minutes the rest of the day. Zoom into the site a little bit more and look at the existing land uses. As I mentioned, there is the church there in the site. The only other uses are townhouses on. The only other uses on the block are the townhouses where the park single family neighborhood and to the east is apartments directly to the south side daycare. Visual cues here. What we're looking at here is the site itself of the church. Um, to the east across Monaco is the apartments which are approximately two storey apartments with some taller apartments behind it. Complex to the south, it's the daycare on the top and the closest single family home across the street to the from the site on the south side, there's Chris Moore Park. There's the townhouses that are actually on the block in question. And this is on the northern boundary of the site. You actually see the entrance parking lot to the church. The garages to the top of the townhouse are directly in front of you. And to the right is a maintenance facility for the park. Quickly learn through the process. Planning Board heard this case on January 21st and forwarded it to the Council Subcommittee. Two different meetings there in February and March. Four neighborhoods and plans. The City Council was to hear this as a public hearing back in March. It was continued to the stage. That was partly and due because of the different public outreach that was occurring from the applicant. As you see, there was lots of letters of opposition in support for this case to consider. It's my understanding at the time of the staff report, the applicant was seeking a restrictive land use covenants that would be required on the property that has a limit the density of allowed various different building forms and vehicular access. That is not what you're considering today. You're just looking at a straight zone district and I would ask the applicant to answer questions regarding that potential restrictive land use covenants. But we are looking at is our review criteria.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an Ordinance authorizing and approving an Amended and Restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan to expand the boundaries of the Urban Redevelopment Area, to authorize the Phase Two Urban Redevelopment Project and to create the Phase Two Property Tax Increment Area and the Phase Two Sales Tax Increment Area
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the Amended and Restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizing the expansion of the Urban Redevelopment Area, addition of a project, creation of the Phase Two Property Tax Increment Area and creation of the Phase Two Sales Tax Increment Area, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06082015_15-0056
|
Speaker 13: That is not what you're considering today. You're just looking at a straight zone district and I would ask the applicant to answer questions regarding that potential restrictive land use covenants. But we are looking at is our review criteria. So we have five different criteria that we look at with the zoning code and review a map and then that application comes in. We'll first look at consistency with adopted plans. In this case, we have comprehensive plan 2000 and Blueprint, Denver, our Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan. And with a comprehensive plan there is. This proposal is consistent with many strategies identified in Denver's comprehensive plan, including the Environmental Sustainability Strategy, two of which speaks of conserving land by promoting infill development within Denver at sites where services and infrastructure are already in place, designating mixed use design and mixed use communities and reducing sprawl so residents can live, work and play within their own neighborhoods. Laney Strategy three B which is encourages quality infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, that offers opportunities for increased density and more amenities, and that broadens the variety of compatible uses. Ebert Strategy one e. Modify land use regulations. Ensure flexibility to accommodate changing demographics and lifestyles, and allow in some places to encourage a diverse mix of housing types and affordable units in neighborhood strategy. One F to invest in neighborhoods to help meet citywide goals and objectives for a range of housing types and prices that Moore in the blueprint Denver which is again the land use transportation component supplement to the comprehensive plan. It is a single family residential designation in Blueprint Denver and an area of stability. It can be seen as a reinvestment area, though. I'll go into a more detail that in the next slide the nearby land use concepts, single family, the park and also with Buckley Annex just to the Northeast as actually employment with an area of change that features reclassification, which is also important in this case. South Monaco is a residential arterial, cedar is an undesignated local. Uh, back into the reinvestment area concept. That is an area of blueprint. Denver If you look the area of stability description of reinvestment area, it speaks of being an area of neighborhoods with a character that is desirable to maintain, but that would benefit from reinvestment through modest infill and redevelopment or major projects in a small area. These areas would encourage investment, but in a more limited and targeted way than areas of change. So there's definitely a thought there that there's a place for reinvestment in in areas of stability. There are strategies in blue for Denver that speaks to addressing that type of idea. Here's a list of a few of them. First one address and cap incompatible zoning and land use issues. Denver's zoning code identifies that single unit residential uses are primarily located away from residential and commercial arterial streets, whereas multi-unit, residential and commercial uses are primary located along arterial and collector streets. The City three zoning would allow that multi-unit development along South Bank Parkway, which is a residential arterial. The existing East Udc's zoning does not allow that compatibility between existing and new development design or development standards. The SMU three does have siting and design elements standards to establish compatibility between existing and new development, addressing edges between areas of stability and areas of change. I mentioned there's an area of a change just to the Northeast. The property is located on an edge of that area of stability. Assuming three, zoning can improve the edge of the single unit residential to the west of South Monaco Parkway, essentially creating a stronger buffer diversity of housing type size and cost . The SMU three will allow a variety of housing choices to strengthen the area of stability. So in that, we do see that CPD finds a rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan and with Blueprint. Denver regarding uniformity of district regulations. The assuming three is adjacent to this. I mentioned that just to the south and is zoned district is found at similar locations along residential arterials within the city to further public health, safety and welfare. SMU three does facilitate redevelopment. The site removes a poorly maintained structure and improves character along Monica and residents have access to recreation, jobs and commercial activities. We're just buying circumstances. We look at change in changing conditions. States, the land or its surrounding environments has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize that changed character of the area. If we look at the site in particular, the structure on site has been deteriorating and the properties and and reinvestment area within that area of stability. There has been a lot of change in this area with Lowry Town Center and the Annex activities. Multi-unit residential is typically located along arterial streets such as Monaco, which is the building type that is allowed in the SMU three zoning, but not the existing zoning. Consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. It's important to know that, you know, we're going from one context to the other here, from an urban edge to suburban with the suburban neighborhood context. Again, the multi-unit residential is primarily located along arterial and collector streets, and it is typically separated from single unit residential. If we look at the map, again, not only it is Long Monaco Parkway, but the park itself creates a significant buffer, kind of isolating this property from the remaining part of XMR Park . So the staff felt that the suburban neighborhood context did fit the site more so than urban edge. With that, we recommends approval of this application to reason 195 South Monaco Parkway three students, two SMU three based on finding all review criteria have been met. I have four.
Speaker 4: Questions.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I understand we have 71 individuals signed up to speak this evening at 3 minutes per person.
Speaker 5: No, some have six.
Speaker 3: Some have six. Okay. So we have 71 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So I'm going to go ahead and call up. The first eight speakers. We've reserved the front bench for the speakers. So when I call your name, if you can go ahead and come up and we will do our very best to run this efficiently. Our first speaker is Peter Cutler. He has 6 minutes. Second speaker is Michael Warren, 6 minutes. Next speaker is Rick Peterson. Next speaker is john stafford. With next speaker is john fisher. Next speaker is denice reit h. Next speaker is Sean Maley followed by and KIRWIN. So if you can all please come up and have a seat in the front bench and we'll go ahead and started the. Peter Kudlow, if you could please begin.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam President. Members of the Council. My name is Peter Cutler. I reside at 2450 East Alameda Avenue. House number ten, Denver, Colorado. Madam President, we were informed that we could not do our earlier point this evening, and I was wondering if I could have permission to pass out a hard copy to members of the council . Certainly my.
Speaker 3: Would you like to continue?
Speaker 4: Yes, I.
Speaker 3: Would. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Madam President, I want to thank the members of the Council for this opportunity to present our plan. For this neighborhood. It has been a lot of great hard work. I'd like to thank the City Planning Department for its professional approval and guidance through the guidelines. I'd also like to thank the Planning Board, who also did a very thorough review of our plan. Tonight, I'm joined by Michael Warren, our development associate as architecture represented by Rick Paterson. Here's KOFLER Smith, civil engineer and traffic engineer. We're joined also by North East DeLay, landscape architect Foster Graham, our land use opportunity with David Foster and CRL associates, which are merely a developer representative. I'm basically looking through partner pages one through six. As noted, I founded Beacon Hill Investments in March of 1984 and also Metropolitan Homes in 1994. I am the sole owner of those two businesses. Our business forecast. Our business focus is to develop, build and manage investments that I am a partner in. We build, develop and operate for sale condominiums, townhomes, patio homes, single family homes. We build for rent communities, including condominiums, townhomes, patios and single family. And we also do a mixed use office retail, entertainment, restaurants. We have built 37 different projects in the overall metropolitan area. This has been in nine different municipalities. Some of our most notable opportunities and proud developments include new Sears in 1989. 90 Loft Rentals on 16th Street. 1997 Granite Ranch Condominiums. Townhomes. Single Family Patios for sale at Bolles and Wadsworth. 2002 Mayfair Lourie 120 townhomes and condominiums just west of the town center and second in Quebec. 2003, we built Lowry North Apartments to 208 residences for rent at 11th and Quebec. 2004. We've had the great fortune to develop 56 single family residence for sale eight in Quebec of Lowry Heights, 32 Condominiums for Sale, 11th in Quebec. 2005. We are very fortunate to have been a leader in the mixed use transit oriented development with Bellagio located Dry Creek and I 25. It's a development including 928 residences. It's a blend of for sale, villas, lofts, condominiums, townhomes and for rent apartments. Currently, we are developing property in Thornton, developing a parcel with Evans and Eagle Bellagio. Very notable opportunity for all of us during some very, very interesting times. It was recognized as the transit oriented development of the year in 2007 by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. By 2011, through very difficult times, we were also recognized as the live work play neighborhood of the year 2011. Our plan was and still is committed to neighborhood enhancement. A lot of people have asked me, why did I invest in this parcel? It is a public record that I have purchased the the site prior to any rezoning efforts. Why? Because I have believed in neighborhood enhancement since the day that I started development and building. I believe in providing diversified housing types. I believe in the city and county of Denver in its guidelines for growth. The planning department and the city officials and all of the individuals involved in making healthy decisions. I do believe in myself as a responsible developer and builder. I take a look at the Mickey Ziplines of the world and I'm fortunate to be around. That's great company. I have always believed in our integrity and we understand needs and we understand demographics. We utilize objective data. We respect all neighborhoods, no matter what the differences may be. I am financially responsible and committed to this plan and I think everyone for their hard work over a period of 17 months. And I ask for your support in the neighborhood support this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Warren.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Madam Chair. Other members of the council. My name is Michael Warren. I live at 3831 West 25th Avenue. I'm a development associate with Metropolitan Homes, and we were presented this opportunity back in November of 2013. We started our market research and immediately made some observations of the neighborhood. There's a strong level of respect and protection for Chris Moore Park. There's a strong sense of pride of ownership. People who live here want to stay here. We found that there is a limited supply of housing choices and diversification. And in reviewing our existing zoning and studying the adjacent properties to the north, the south, the east and the west, and further studying our location along a major arterial Monaco and have just north of another major arterial Alameda that our site invited an opportunity for housing diversification with for sale and for rent residences. From this, we established goals and objectives to address these observations from the area. These observations are included, but not limited to improving the pedestrian walking connectivity north and south along Monaco and east and west along Cedar into the park. So heavy traffic and vehicular access concerns, minimizing surface parking and the impact that that has. Being respectful of high quality architectural design. Height and size of the building. And responsible density and site development. So starting in January of 2014, we held meetings with neighborhood leaders, neighborhood groups, associations, and many individuals in the community. We evaluated a number of different options, including retail office and various housing choices, and arrived at our initial plan of a four storey age targeted building with 120 residences. We submitted our application for an SMU five zoned district with the waiver to four storeys in October of 2014. After conducting additional meetings and continuing our neighborhood outreach, it was apparent that the height of the building was still a concern. So we went back to our land plan, revised our rezoning application in December of 2014 to an SMU three zoned district. We enhanced access points and traffic management lowered the height to three stories. We continue to have multiple meetings with city and council or I'm sorry, with city and County of Denver planning staff, all of the referral referral agencies to confirm utilization of the existing curb cuts on Monica. So there would be no access points off cedar or locus. We increased the parking counts and we kept the density at 120 units. We took that plan through planning board in January and received approval. We then continued to meet with neighborhood groups, leaders and a mediator. There were still concerns regarding the density, parking and traffic, so we asked for a continuance in March to further enhance our plan. We continued our neighborhood outreach, made additional enhancements to the plan to increase parking to a 2.02 parking ratio. We enhanced the design of the buildings and further revise our plans from 120 residences to 25 for sale townhomes and 50 age targeted residences for rent. So in summation, again, our plan evolved from our initial plan of a four storey building with underground parking and 120 residences to a plan with a three storey building, 120 residences, improvements to parking, traffic and accessibility. Then in April of 2015, we revised our plan to what we are presenting here today, consisting of 25 for sale townhomes and 58 targeted for rent residences. In your package, you'll find a picture of an aerial of the existing site. As David mentioned, the site is currently 2.33 acres. The total developable site, including the roadways along Cedar and Monaco, is about three acres. There's significant park distance between our site and Kearny and to the north, about 1000 feet between our site and South Moore Drive. The current zoning for our site is Eastside, which allows for single family homes to the northwest corner of the existing townhomes are zoned at 2.5 to the east. The old cross Moore Downs is an are two A with waivers which allowed for over 700 units. It includes two story and seven story apartment rentals. The zoning for the parcel on the southwest corner directly south of us is SMU three, which is the same zoning we are applying for today. If you will look at your site plan elevation please. In the packet should be page 11. The orientation on the bottom of the page there is Monaco on the left hand side of Cedar Avenue and Locust above. We have our main building, which, as are the larger building, is a three storey residential building with underground parking. That's 50 age targeted residences. Then on the left hand side, the south portion of the site are 25 for sale townhomes. And I'd like to speak to a couple of things regarding this site plan. Access to the site is from two existing curb cuts off of Monaco. There is no access to the site off of cedar or locus, and that was deliberately to eliminate or mitigate cut through traffic in the neighborhood. Setbacks in the parkway enhancement. We have set back our apartment building 94 feet from Monaco. We have a parkway enhanced about 44 to 48 feet running all along. Monaco screened by a massively designed landscaping plan. Then we have our townhomes are set back about 44 feet from Monaco, 30 feet from Cedar, an additional 22 and a half feet from locust. Sidewalks. There's an eight foot detached sidewalk along Monaco. A five foot detached sidewalk along cedar. And a five foot attached sidewalk along locus, which doesn't currently exist parking to the site. We have 152 spaces, as I mentioned before, which is a parking ratio of 2.02. There are two attached parking spaces for each individual townhome. There are 58 underground parking spaces for the main building, and there are 44 additional surface parking spaces which we believe will continue.
Speaker 3: I apologize to interrupt, but your 6 minutes.
Speaker 13: Yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate your consideration.
Speaker 3: Our next speaker is Rick Peterson.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Good evening, Madam President. And Council Members. My name is Rick Petersen. I'm a representative of Ares architecture, the designer of the project. And I would like to pick up where Michael left off and primarily focus on the architectural style of the proposal. As he mentioned that the project is built up and broken into eight different buildings of two types. If you want to go to the next page after the after the.
Speaker 8: Site plan.
Speaker 4: You'll see elevations of the townhomes we have been following, the crest market filing to design guidelines and that call for an acceptable ranch style. And in doing so, we really are inspired by the subtypes of a ranch style, which are prairie and craftsman style. The townhomes are a mixture of three and four unit buildings. As I mentioned, there are seven of them and they really are represent a mixture of both the craftsman and prairie style. The next page that you have represents the elevations of the age targeted building.
Speaker 8: And as Michael.
Speaker 4: Mentioned, that is 50 units, it's self parked underneath. And this too follows the the crest more design guidelines and is a little more primarily targeted towards the prairie style. Finally these are these buildings, as he started to mention, are set far back from Monaco. And that really gives us a lot of opportunity for a landscaping buffer. It's quite generous and we feel that it's really going to result in an enhanced and an.
Speaker 13: Improved experience along Monaco. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is John said with an you also have 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. If I knew I was coming to a sign, I would have worn a towel. But you wouldn't want to see that. My name is John said with I live at 245 Carney Street and I'm president of the Crest Moore Park Second Failing Homes Association. The Crest North Park Second Filing Homes Association is an organization representing 490 covenant controlled single family homes, developed as a Denver neighborhood in the 1950s. And by the way, we are the closest R.A. to the north and to the west of the proposed project. Our community was originally built as ranch homes in large lots. By Denver city standards, there are no alleys in the former neighborhoods and by design, no sidewalks. The streets are wider than most Denver streets, and the covenants forbid the building of any structure and the front 30 foot setback of any home. Unlike our neighbor hilltop, by the way, we are not hilltop, we are customer park. There are no fences in the front of homes, thus maintaining a wide open, sweeping vista. As one looks up our streets, one of the greatest amenities of our neighborhood is the adjacent crest Moore Park. This park has a walking and has a walking and biking path mature trees, baseball fields, tennis courts, picnic areas, a children's playground and soccer fields. The eastern edge of the park borders on Monaco Parkway. And except for about a ten two story townhomes, the park is surrounded by single family, one and two story residences. During the spring and fall, the park is teaming with youth soccer teams competing, and the surrounding streets are lined with the park cars of parents cheering their teams. On some days, the congestion of cars and child pedestrians can feel overwhelming, especially as eager parents cruised the area looking for scarce scarce parking, illegal parking space or not. Our neighborhood is very walkable, and on any given day, one can encounter families with children, the elderly and the exercisers. Utilizing our wide open streets for access to the park and its paths. Dogs are walked, children are taught how to ride bikes, joggers jog and others leisurely stroll, admiring the landscaped gardens and beautifully kept homes. I hope the above gives you a feel for what is to be what it is to be. A resident of our neighborhood, of wide open lawns, wide boulevard like streets and single family homes. Now imagine a huge mixed use development. Lowry's Boulevard, one being constructed just across Monica Parkway from our neighborhood, as traffic from that development seeks to go west towards Cherry Creek and downtown and return in the evening where to find quicker access to arterials. It has found a shortcut through our neighborhood, the adjacent streets that development Quebec, Alameda and Monaco Parkway are overly congested by any measure. And as Boulevard one is completed, these streets will only get even more congested. There are no two ways around this conundrum. The cut through traffic will only get worse. This brings us to the proposed rezoning of 195 South Monica Parkway, as currently proposes to development, would add a minimum 75 units of townhomes and apartments and three story buildings. No comparable buildings at this density in height exist directly on Monica Parkway, nor is there any similar construction heading west from this construction site. It's a one reaches the Cherry Creek neighborhood. The developer of 195 South Monica presented several plans to the neighborhoods that surround this proposed development. The neighborhood organizations that are most affected by this proposed rezoning are unanimous in their opposition. But is this opposition just a NIMBY reaction to progress? To analyze this question properly, one must examine this application of the wider context of the development of Boulevard One and its future effect on the neighborhoods. Our neighborhoods are concerned about the same issues that arise and arise again when development is proposed density, height, parking, traffic and safety. But even more important to our residents is their way of life. The tranquility and walkability of the neighborhood and the wide open vistas. Look at our covenants, protect our neighborhood is not opposed to all development and in fact, welcome smart development that enhances our property values and adds to our quality of life. A suburban feel. Yet within the minutes of a vibrant urban city, our Neighborhoods Architecture Review Committee works with every developer building in our neighborhood to preserve and enhance our neighborhood. We have worked together on hundreds of remodel scrapes and pop ups to develop a win win project for developers. It creates more. The neighborhood characteristics of six more apart have been described above. We cherish our park, its openness and the feeling of serenity it brings to those that stroll its path and play on its fields . True buildings of this size proposed to him in that part of the eastern perimeter will change the characteristics that make this place this oasis in the middle of a vibrant, bustling city. The special place that it is. Our commitment to future generations of Denver sites is to preserve preserve these greenspaces at all costs because they can never be replaced. A parkway is defined as a broad landscaped thoroughfare. The proposed development would change the nature of Monica Parkway. Even the Boulevard One project maintains berms, grassy areas and detention ponds to separate its buildings to the parkway. Nowhere in Monaco Parkway from Liesl Drive to Smith Road are there any structures of the type that development proposes. Just as we must preserve our parks, we must preserve our parkways, our nature. Friends are meeting after meeting at survey after survey of sounding overwhelmingly rejected the developer's proposal for this 2.3 acre property. A survey taken across more second farming homeowners in January and demonstrates the residents concern and overwhelming opposition to this rezoning. The survey resulted in 218 households, not individuals, opposed the rezoning 54 in support and 14 with no opinion. At the Chris Moore Second Family Homes Association annual meeting held May 27th, attended by more than 100 homeowners representing 66 homes. Both sides of this issue were allowed time to make presentations to the residents. The presentations were followed by a question and answer period. A vote was then taken by households, not people. The vote with 73 opposed and one in favor of the current rezoning. To conclude, please vote to preserve our neighborhood and Monaco Parkway and to allow us to continue to enjoy our streets, our park, and our homes. In a unique Denver neighborhood, a neighborhood of stability and preserved open space. A neighborhood that is proud to call Denver home. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay. Politely, I'm going to ask you to refrain from applauding. We have several speakers this evening and I think it's fair that they speak and we get out of here before tomorrow. But do you say okay. Thank you, Mr. Said with Mr. Fisher.
Speaker 4: My name is. My name is John Fisher and I'm the president of the Crest Ma Homeowner Crest MA Homeowners Association first filing. I live with three, three, three, five, three, three, three, three. Ivy Street was the original farm home for all of Crest Ma Park. And if you're ever in the area, come on by. My wife is a gardener. She's expanded the gardens somewhat. And and it's it's a look like an English cottage. But the character of our neighborhood is pretty much, as John said with has very rapidly told you. I've known John for 16 years now. I have never heard him talk that fast for 6 minutes. But he said a mouthful and he said some of the things that I would say in in order to avoid redundancy, I'm not going to repeat any of what he said. But I want to underscore and emphasize a couple of things. First, our neighborhood, the first failing was built in the early 1930s and it was indeed belt built to be a very residential neighborhood. The second filing was built during the 1950s, primarily as ranch homes. If you're coming to the first filing, you'll see a lot of two story homes in the second filing, mostly ranch style, until they were made into McMansions over the last few years, but beautiful residential neighborhood with about one third acre lots. And this is the character that we are trying very desperately to preserve. These kinds of neighborhoods are never going to be built again. And I think we all know it and we all recognize it and we accept it, but we want to preserve what we have. Up until recently, the character has been preserved by the city and by the neighbors themselves by making sure that we because we're covenant controlled communities, you can't subdivide our properties and we preserve that whenever we redo our covenants. And the city preserved our character with redoing the zoning code in 2010 and making sure that all of our properties were zoned single family. So how do we arrive here tonight to debate why we should rezone a parcel of what, when you look at that, at the map that you've been provided, that is that is being considered now for rezoning, you see that it is actually contiguous to all of Chris Moore part. It is not contiguous to anything across the street on Monaco Parkway. Monaco is actually a buffer and we consider it one. And bigger development is going on across the street, especially Boulevard one. Yes, that's an area of change. Chris Moore Park across the street is not an area of change. I think the planning department got it wrong. And I will tell you, I haven't been involved in this kind of stuff until the last ten years. And during those ten years, I have learned that anybody can can take facts and they can change them to their liking to try to to try to convince people of what they want to convince them. And I think that is what is happening here to a large degree, because we are definitely an area of stability and that's what we want to preserve. I want to point out that one of the that that all of the residents of Chris Moore Park that recognize that this parcel should be redeveloped because it can be considered a blight. It's definitely fallen into disrepair and needs to be changed. But what we are opposing is not development, but over development. We would welcome, welcome with open arms, working with Peter Kudla to try to put in an all townhome community. We have proposed that two metropolitan homes and we have been denied that opportunity because they have made the financial decision. I believe that they need the 50 apartments and yes, they have made some concessions, but the concessions took us down from 120. That was, we think, absurd down to 75, which we think is still too dense. But we were we have worked hard. The community has the communities, the neighborhoods have reached out and held community meetings. We have invited the developers to come. We were reaching out more than the developers were reaching out to hold these meetings, inviting them to try to come to work collaboratively to find an alternative design that would be acceptable to the neighborhoods and acceptable to metropolitan homes. So let's begin with what we have in front of us. We have in front of us the proposal for 25 owner occupied townhomes and 50 apartments. We believe that that they what they did in a sense and I know this doesn't sit well with some people there is a developer's handbook. I think that is that happens in in some cities. It certainly happens here in Denver to a degree. When Buckley Annex was was first being redeveloped, the plan was for 1200 living units they came down to. 800 that is still being opposed is too dense. That was a one third reduction. Metropolitan homes started with 120, came down to 75. That's a 37% reduction. But there's an awful strong similarity between the two. And with that as a concession and then the others that you've already heard described, we still think the fundamental issue is this project is too dense for our neighborhood. The timeline, I think, is of critical importance. How did we get here? When when Metropolitan Homes looked at this site, they came first before purchasing the property to Councilwoman Sussman. They told her what they were thinking of doing. She explained that they would face an uphill battle because the neighborhoods got together and opposed a prior development that was proposed about six years before. That would have, in the end had 58 leaving you in a sense, in commercial space because of the opposition by the neighborhoods. That proposal was withdrawn.
Speaker 1: Your time has elapsed.
Speaker 3: Your 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: I miss the yellow, huh? Well, I think I got to the main part.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Denise Rich, followed by Sean Maley and and Kerwin.
Speaker 1: My name is Denise Rich. I live at 125 Ivy. I have been a realtor in hilltop and cress more over 40 years. What is needed in the neighborhood? No one asks that question. We need senior housing, main floor, masters, patio homes, people that move out of their homes that are they can no longer maintain their yards or take care of those. I used to carry a snow shovel in the back of my car for the older people because there were no townhomes, main floor masters being built in the area. We do not need another three storey apartment. Or rental complex. There are 7300 units in this city that are on the market. Another 3700 units are coming on with a total of 11,000 units in the next two years. That's an incredible absorption rate for rental units. I have seen Denver boom and bust four times and we're in the state of it can never happen. When the market is top heavy with so many apartments being built and I'm not going to dispute all these people that are going to come in and rent. My opinion, it's a myth. The first part of the market to fall is the rental. It creates an inevitable disaster for the future safety and stability of a neighborhood. We already have 710 units directly across the street. Those units, there are ten currently to be rented that are anywhere from 1300 to $2000. And those are one bedroom. But there are also in that same complex. The Luxe eight two bedroom units that are to be rented with 13 acres of ponds and amenities swimming pool across the street. What is the planning board thinking? I mean, we already have it. Why do you have to ruin another neighborhood with density? There are five subdivisions that have nothing available for any kind of main floor living. There are sold out Hempstead selling at 8 to 900 in Lorry Carriage House. You never get an available unit there. The Biscayne Subdivision is the patio homes and those are on Florida and Monroe. Those are selling at the last one, just sold for 500. So if there is a need, it's a need for patio homes. The developer has not been honest in the valuation, nor has the planning department of what is needed and wanted by the community. Why should the city allow the developer to establish yet another unneeded, overbearing apartment complex? If the application is a lie, you have got to deny.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is Sean Maley. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Good evening, Madam President and members of Council. My name is Sean Maley. 1660, Lincoln and Denver. I've been working with Metropolitan Homes for over a year now on this process. First thing I want to talk about is the process and we've held a lot of meetings. I won't go into detail, but we've tried very hard to be honest, collaborative and open minded to input. This was not a process where we started high seeking to settle in the middle or low. We started with a very honest 120 unit age targeted proposal for the site, which Peter Kudla and his team felt was the right decision for the market and for the site in the neighborhood. We made a number of changes to that site, but when concerns remained regarding the density and the all for rent aspect of the project, we continued this public hearing for about two and a half months so we could make additional changes and responses to the community. And that's ultimately how we landed at the 50 edge targeted apartments and 25 for sale townhomes. I want to talk briefly about Blueprint Denver. David Jaspers did a good job as always in a staff presentation, but we know areas of stability does not mean no change. Blueprint has a number of strategies for areas of stability. Talking about addressing incompatible zone districts edges between areas of stability in areas of change and promoting a diverse mix of housing options type, size and cost. The zoning code talks about locating single family zoning away from arterial streets and locating multi-unit zoning on arterial streets. Monaco as an arterial street. David also talked about reinvestment areas, and I bring that up again because I think the definition fits the site to a tee. Reinvestment areas are in neighborhoods with a character that is desirable to maintain but would benefit from modest infill or major projects in a small area. I wouldn't consider this to be a major project, but I do think that the 75 units we're proposing is modest infill. It continues in these areas and can encourage investment, but in a more limited and targeted way. In order to limit and target our redevelopment, we have limited the density to 75 units and we've targeted the for sale townhomes to Cedar and Locust and locating the apartment form on the more challenging Monaco frontage. The definition concludes with these areas face a variety of challenges, including concern about deteriorating or poorly maintained properties. Inappropriate land uses, inadequate buffers between uses and maintaining affordable housing. Again, I think if you look at this site and some of the challenges and opportunities it presents, it meets that definition quite well. And it's remarkable to see some of the foresight that the drafters of Blueprint Denver had in drafting these concepts, as we've been grappling with them for the last 18 months. The next thing I'd like to talk about is context, which is very important when considering the zoning of the site. This site is the only corner of the intersection of Cedar and Monaco that does not have multi-unit zoning. The the southwest corner is zoned SMU three, which is what we're seeking. The northeast and southeast corners are zoned are to a which is an old code multi-unit zoned district, which, as you've heard, allows for over 700 units of apartments ranging from 2 to 7 stories. Our corner is still zoned single family, which is likely a remnant from the original 1950s zoning code. A lot has been made about the context of Monaco being primarily single family on the west side of the street between George Washington High School up north to 38th Avenue near I-70. And that is true for the most part. However, what's interesting about those single family homes on the West Side is that except for a school. On Mont View. Not one of the single family homes on the west side of the street does not have a matching single family home on the east side of the street where single family exists on the west side. It is always met in parity with a single family home on the east side of the street. And for more than two thirds of this corridor, there's that gorgeous center median parkway between sixth and 38th that greatly aids in that single family context. When you look at our site, there is no center median parkway. There are no single family homes across the street. And instead you have that large suburban 710 unit apartment community ranging from 2 to 7 stories tall. Health care services and a little bit northeast. You have the Boulevard one redevelopment. This section of Monaco between Alameda and first is much different node than the rest of Monaco and that I think it is unfair to expect this site to perform as single family or even townhomes fronting Monaco. When this node again is unlike any other section of Monaco. Furthermore, many of the single family homes on the west side of Monaco, south of that median parkway, have over time turned their back to Monaco. And we've seen some of the architectural models that the Friends of Crest Marc Group have come up with. And in a number of their concepts, even their designs turn the backs of single family homes or townhomes to Monaco, which doesn't comport with the zoning code. And it also kind of proves the point of the challenge that fronting Monaco in this section is. Lastly, I want to talk briefly about customized zoning. We first sought to limit the density to 75 units via a waiver and condition. However, as the Planning Department has recently discussed, waivers and conditions are more suitable for items in zone district with a broad or citywide implication, such that they seek to address this in a future language amendment to the zoning code. And again, they're intended for items broadly applicable across all zone districts, not site specific. So limiting density on this site does not fit that purpose. And as for a PWD, the code requires unique and extraordinary circumstances to justify the use of a pad. Again, limiting density does not qualify as one of those unique and extraordinary circumstances. In closing, I would just like to say that the current proposal of 50 apartments in 25.
Speaker 3: Year time is lapsed. Thank you.
Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Our next speaker is. And Kerwin. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 1: Yes. Hello. Good evening. I am Ann Kerwin. Our neighbor, a man named Aaron Swartz, could not attend tonight's hearing, but asked us to share some comments with you. You may have seen his piece in last Thursday's Denver Post. It was entitled The Human Cost of High Density Development on a spring afternoon last year. Aaron's pregnant wife and their three year old son had walked him to work at a nursing center at East Alameda and South Monaco Parkway a couple of blocks from their home. It was about 2 p.m. when he kissed them goodbye. After walking inside, Aaron said he heard the wail of sirens. There's a fire station nearby, so the familiar sound didn't raise any alarms for him. It should have. As Aaron's wife headed back to their house with their son falling asleep in the stroller, she crossed Monaco and then was waiting on the sidewalk to cross Alameda when she heard a terrifying screech. A car heading straight smashed into one turning left. That car spun, hitting Aaron's wife and throwing his son from the stroller onto the street. Aaron knew nothing of the accident until he received a call a couple of hours later from Denver Health. His wife and child were in stable condition. He raced outside and saw their blue stroller lying on the sidewalk and smashed cars nearby. He started screaming No, over and over. Aaron's mother took him to the hospital. As it turned out, his son had road rash all over his body, a deep gash on his head, and a broken collarbone. For weeks, the three year old had to be in a sling and could not run or climb. Remarkably, Aaron's wife had escaped major injuries. Through all the chaos, the little light shines through and ultrasound showed that the child in her womb was okay. And for the first time, they learned they were having another boy. Aaron Swartz family survived this harrowing ordeal, but he tells how their accident still haunts them. The older son is more hesitant and, of course, wary of cars. They like to walk me now every time they cross a. As these street fear grips them, they stand far back at intersections looking for cars that might hit them, Erin says. I hear Denver is one of the most popular cities in the country for young people like us. It's nice to live in a city that is thriving. But growth in Denver is also putting pressure on neighborhoods like ours. Developers and city officials seem to think that our city must stand, which in high density buildings everywhere we can. They know traffic will increase. They say the growth has to come first, then solutions to terrible traffic someday will follow. What they're forgetting is that poor planning leaves real people vulnerable in our relatively quiet neighborhood of single family homes. We are facing two proposed Joan zoning changes this month that could bring hundreds of new units and thousands of additional car trips a day. An Englewood developer wants to tear down a church on Christmas park and build townhomes and a high density apartment complex on this small 2.3 acre site just across from Monaco Parkway. The Lowry Development Authority wants to add 800 units. Aaron Swartz said he would love to know that an accident like the one that hurt his family will never happen again. The truth is, it can and it will. We desperately need safer, more efficient transportation in this neighborhood. It doesn't make sense to allow high density urban development here. We should add lower scale developments like townhomes and single family homes that fits our area. Let's build bigger projects near light rail lines. Let's plan for better bike and bus routes. Let's keep pedestrians safe. Aaron Swartz's family experienced the direct effects of too much traffic. He's lucky that his wife and son survived. Let's not put others in jeopardy. Please join me in asking the Denver City Council to stop allowing big high density projects and assuming the traffic solutions will magically follow.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms. KIRWIN. Okay. Our next round of eight speakers, I'm going to call your name and again, if you can come up to the front reserved bench. The first one is David Foster. Scott Robinson. Marty Reps. Patricia Hutchinson. Thomas Craven, Mark Siddall, Meg Sharp and John Huggins. You have 6 minutes, Mr. Foster.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Madam President. Members of Denver City Council. My name's David Foster. Address 360 South Garfield.
Speaker 4: Denver 80209.
Speaker 13: Here on behalf of Metropolitan Homes, thank you for the time this evening. I will try to beat the 6 minutes as Mr. Maley had identified. Well, let me start with the the lawyer in me, so I'd like to incorporate by reference into.
Speaker 8: The into.
Speaker 13: The hearing tonight blueprint Denver and comprehensive plan.
Speaker 4: 2000.
Speaker 13: In addition to that, notwithstanding what my friend John Fisher may have said just a moment ago about planning staff and the planning board getting it wrong, I actually thought that they got it right. And I'd like to enter into the record this as well. This is the CD from the January 21st hearing, you know. It's a CD from the Jerry 21st hearing before the Denver Planning Board. I also have a multitude of copies here. One more handout. And this is what Sean was beginning to address in terms of the land use covenant. So I will focus almost entirely on the document that you may have in front of you and that you'll be seeing here shortly as we have articulated the project. Notwithstanding the fact that SMU three has doesn't have a density requirement or a.
Speaker 4: Maximum amount of units that could be built. We have imposed that.
Speaker 13: Limitation on us. We have also imposed.
Speaker 4: A access.
Speaker 13: Limitation on us that all of access would come off of Monaco. We've also identified that on the site itself.
Speaker 4: We have both a planning area, A in planning R and B.
Speaker 13: Where certain forms, building forms will exist. And you will see that on sub area A, it's the exhibit B, sub area will have the townhouse building form. And so very a B will have the apartment building form. But very quickly, what I'd like you to understand is that this land use covenant will be recorded against the property , will run with the land. It has multiple parties to this agreement, both the landowner and a number of individuals who have either already signed or we are having them signed. Everybody has agreed to have their names associated with this land use covenant. It will in fact limit density to 25 individual townhouses on sub area A, it will limit density to a maximum of 50 apartment or condos.
Speaker 4: On sub area B it will.
Speaker 13: This property will only be used for residential development. There will not be more than a maximum of 75 units on its entirety. There will be two points of ingress and egress to this entire site. Those coming off of Monaco, there shall be no ingress and egress to and from the property from either cedar or locust. That was a very big point of contention with planning staff who wanted to drive the traffic off of Monaco and Cedar. And that was an issue that was raised very early on. In our conversations. We have identified what the setbacks will be. That's in 3D and in 3D discussion of the height limitations. A couple of other components to this land use covenant that I believe are important. The the paragraph five covenant running with the land. That means from owner.
Speaker 4: To owner, it is.
Speaker 13: Restricting the land and there are parties to it who can enforce. I'll get to that in a moment. That and I'm just going to read this language because there's been some talk in the community that, you know, the developer isn't willing to live by the bargain and certainly their lawyer isn't going to draft anything to have the developer live by the bargain. So I want to read this that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, if after all the townhomes and apartment or condominium units that are to be built on the property as contemplated by Section three have been completed and certificates of occupancy for all such units have been issued and the expiration of 20 years thereafter in the event the property is then re zoned, this agreement and all covenants and or restrictions contained herein shall automatically terminate. So that is the termination provision 20 years down the road after the property. Potentially, if it does get rezone 20 years from now, dispute resolution, all disputes will go to mediation, binding arbitration. All of those costs will be borne by the owner, by Peter Cutler. And then another issue that was raised early on is this is terrific, but we don't have the funds who are neighbors to enforce this. We have we will be placing within 30 days if the city council approves this rezoning, $25,000 into escrow in order for the neighbors who are signatories to this agreement to enforce this very agreement. So back two months ago, it was in the beginning of April, I submitted a draft of this document to a neighborhood, a group of neighborhood leaders. I did not hear back from any of them as it relates to any of the terms with good fortune. There are a series of neighbors, some of whom are here tonight, who will likely speak to their participation in this agreement, who reached out, hired their own independent attorneys, because, of course, nobody is going to believe a developer , nobody is going to believe a developer's attorney. So they have hired their own attorneys to review this covenant. Two independent attorneys have reviewed this covenant on their behalf. It's enforceable, it will be recorded. And so if I've heard it really once I've heard it many, many times through this process that the developer is really seeking to rezone the site, he'll sell it. And then nobody will live by the promise of. That he's made. I'd like to put an end to that particular conversation tonight. People may disagree with the ultimate project that Mr. Cutler is seeking to build and the rezoning that we're seeking tonight. But the conversation about whether or not he can build more than what he has represented tonight really should end with this particular land use covenant. I will say I have also been a part of this process for the last 17 or 18 months. The project that was submitted initially to two neighbors, to the planning board, to the planning staff of 120 units that did receive planning staff support and planning board support is not as good of a project as a project that is in front of you tonight. I think the process made this project better. I think the diversification of housing has made this project better. And I think we are the beneficiaries of that 18 month process. And I hope that you will see fit to support this project tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Foster. Our next speaker is Scott Robinson. And. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you, council members and thank you for your time and effort that you put in down here. My name is Scott Robinson. I live on Cross Moore Park. I'm at 21 South Kearney. I've seen this project since the inception. I've seen it, you know, when there was access off of the side streets. And I want to tell you that I really appreciate the the neighborhood and the developer working together to lessen the impacts. And I really think they've done a good job with that. And I think that's important because it shows that everybody is working to make it right. You know what currently is on Monaco near the site, we had single family homes that were built probably ten or 15 years ago and they are blighted and have not worked. It's right on the north side of Alameda and it's just been an eyesore the whole time. The reason is nobody wants to live on Monaco and face Monaco. I understand why, you know, apartments work, but single family, you're not going to pay that much for a house that that looks out on to Monaco. It just doesn't make any sense. So I really I mean, I think, you know, more developer men or smarter development. I mean, I think you want smarter development. I think that's what this proposal is. There's a little bit of the the little Chicken Little. I mean, I went through the rezoning or the change on Fillmore when they took away the pedestrian access. And people said that that was going to, you know, make this place horrible. I'm in the office building next door to that. Cars go in and out. It works great. I don't understand, you know, what the outcry was that that how could you do this to our neighborhood? This is another one of those, I believe. And I really think that that what we're proposing here is right for the neighborhood and it makes sense. Lastly, I'd just like to say that, you know, some of the some of the misrepresentations of this has been astounding to me. I know that the homeowners association gave you a plan with or a a thing about how many residents were against something and all the comments for it. And I appreciate them doing that. But that wasn't even for the plan that's proposed tonight, and that's misleading. And I think that's a horrible injustice. So thank you very much for your time, and I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Our next speaker is Marty Ripps. So you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President and council members. And thank you very much for your attention. My name is Marty Rapp's. I live in Denver. I'm a realtor, a former lawyer for ten years in a past life. And I'm here as a concerned citizen. I'm here to urge you to uphold the rule of law, or specifically the law of rules. I strongly object to the erosion of blueprint Denver. Rules exist to to protect everyone and to guide decision making by everyone. And that's you and me and my clients and attorneys who advise my clients. Development can certainly upgrade an area, but it also can certainly degrade it. The proposed development is in an area of stability, yet the developer is proposing varying apartment complexes on a plot of land zoned for single family residences only, regardless of the ways you can wiggle and squirm to justify a change. Per the planning department, the issue is not whether you can, but whether you should. And whether it's a good idea to do so. We're told in The Denver Post that the developer took a risk when he purchased this property. Let's be clear. It wasn't a risk which can sound kind of edgy, kind of sexy. Maybe it was a gamble. And that gamble was a gamble that if the laws were flaunted, flaunted. And the system was played. Then that developer would get personal gain. Now, in a conservation easement context, context, if someone purchased a piece of land that had been protected by a conservation easement with the idea that everybody else had failed to purchase it, but gee, if they purchased it, perhaps they could get that easement vacated and then they could do the development and then they would gain. I think everyone in the room would say that's really kind of unfair. Well, this is exactly the same thing in an urban context. Protecting our existing neighborhoods is of critical importance and is the major stated goal a blueprint? Denver To approve this zoning change would be to undermine the certainty the blueprint Denver provides to foster confusion and to encourage rampant gambling by developers, since all rules would be considered mere suggestions. And that, in my view, would be a disaster. I also would like to comment on something that Mr. Foster said about his covenant. I believe in paragraph four. You can see that it says if the application and proposed development of the property by owner is abandoned. Now that could mean sold to somebody else. This agreement shall terminate and thereafter shall be known.
Speaker 3: Void for the time is up. Thank you. Our next speaker is Patricia Hutchinson. Patricia. Our next speaker is Thomas Raven. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Fellow council members. I'm Dr. Tom Raven and I live at 45 South W, which is actually in Hilltop. But I really came because I'm concerned about the traffic that is going to be developed around this whole area. Having lived in the neighborhood literally all my life, 74 years so far, with a few years in the military away. I've lived in Hilltop, so I've seen development from the Robinson Dairy with a barn on it to whatever is going to happen there now. And because I live on, I am exposed to and have seen over the years how how the development around is around us has driven traffic down down here. First of all, it's a connection between Leeds Stale and Glendale. So the traffic comes up, the stoplight and it's coming down. Delia, as the development goes around, it just gets busier and busier. And for a street that was really a rural street, it's almost a freeway now. And it's no one's everybody has sort of said, well, it doesn't make any difference. You live pretty far away from that development. But no, it doesn't. Every time another car gets added to this pile, it's adding up to traffic on an Alameda traffic at Monaco. And I can tell you that I drive through that intersection fairly frequently and I ride my bike through there fairly often during the summer. And I can tell the story that I heard about the crash. There is a happens or potentially is there. Almost every time I cross this cedar, Monica, I get that light. So I'm and I can see that is not going to get any better with any kind of development there, although I think there needs to be something done with the property and I'm all for it. I just think that what these people are trying to propose is a little bit much for this area and that neighborhood and is going to drive traffic down cedar one way or the other to get around that corner of Alameda and Monaco. So I really have a lot of reservations about this from the side. And since I've seen this development go on for years and years and get worse and worse.
Speaker 8: I'm I'm sort of feeling it.
Speaker 4: And I need to be verbal about the problem. And I don't really have any great solutions other than to say, let's be cognizant about what when we open up areas to more and more cars, there's going to be more and more issues around the whole neighborhood and not just this isolated area.
Speaker 3: Thank you. That's perfect time. Gosh. All right. Mark Sindel is next, followed by Meg Sharpe and John Huggins.
Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening. Thanks. Madam President and council. I hope not to use all of my time. I live at 201 Ivanhoe Street. I'm speaking in support of the project. So I'm a Chris Moore resident. I love my neighborhood. I love my neighbors. It's really this process and all these orange signs that popped up around the neighborhood that got me to really engage and pay attention. And I think this is a great example of the process at work. And I encourage you to to support the project. It's, in my opinion, a great example of the neighbors making the project better. I think until I learned, I didn't really know what was going on as I dug in a little bit. I think the vast improvements by restricting the access to Monaco and let's see, I like the investment in the neighborhood, especially at a kind of challenged corner there. I like the addition of housing options into the kind of palette of crest more. I like the building architecture. Reminds me a lot of third and Holly, which is very close to where I live. I kind of wish I could walk over this way like I can over there to a little bit of retail where I frequent the restaurants and shops and the cheese company and the like there. So that that would be nice. But I understand some people didn't like that. And I think this is a nice compromise. I think it's a terrific amount of setback and a lot of beautiful landscaping that I see in the picture that I've seen that separates the the street from the from the front of the project. You know, I heard about this restriction kind of self-imposed to eliminate the concerns of, well, what if they go put as much as they can in this three storey bucket? And I think I think it's a it's a great job. I commend everybody that worked on it. And I just want to remind you that Monaco's an arterial street, and I think that's exactly where this belongs. And thanks for your hard work.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker, Meg. Champ, you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is MiG Sharp and I own a home at 430 South Newport Way, Denver 802 to 4. I live four doors north of the Denver Green School on Virginia Avenue and just a few blocks east of George Washington High School. I have raised three children in the Winston Downs subdivision over the last 20 years, purchasing a home twice within the same neighborhood. Today, I come to you as a member of the Winston Down Homeowner's Association, which represents over 550 homes bordered by Monaco, Quebec, Alameda and Lewis Dale. We are a mere two blocks from the proposed Mt. Gallia development site. We appreciate a councilman, Councilwoman Sussman, attending our annual homeowners meeting in April with a vote of our members showing overwhelming opposition to a 75 unit development currently proposed. Over 75 members attended, and out of those in attendance, only two members were in favor of the current proposal put forth by Mr. Kudla and Mr. Birkhoff. Many of us were also involved in the Lego Project and learned a great deal about considerations needing to be made before any zoning changes would be acceptable to our association or R.A. members. I would like to add that while these. I'm wondering whether some of the restrictions that we're talking about have been finalized and approved by the fire department or by traffic. When we look at looking at those zoning restrictions, we're so grateful to Councilwoman Sussman, who attended the Friends of Chris Moore Park early in May. Our meeting presenting several options with Legos, including the current proposal by the developer. My younger children are now 14 and also attended attended Lourey Elementary School during this time that Lowry homes were just beginning to blossom. I know it is important for us to develop appropriately properties around here that will improve our neighborhood. But tonight I come to you to say the proposed zoning change on this Mount Gilead site is not the appropriate alternative or in the best interests of our various communities that use the surrounding corridors and park. Well, there are numerous issues to bring up regarding this proposal. Out of respect for your time, I want to just speak of the traffic and more specifically the parking issues, which will be a huge challenge to several stakeholders whom I have known for many years as an active resident. In my neighborhood, schools and community, primarily, my children have grown up using Crest Moore Park as a place to go multiple times during the week, during soccer season and during bike riding season. We also live in an area with a large number of Orthodox Jewish families who use our streets heavily. From Friday, at sundown through late Saturday evening, the multiple use of our park and the surrounding streets adds exponential, exponential risk and liability to many. Streets are already quite congested. Add to this group of stakeholders, the children and families at the preschool directly across the street from this proposed and likely 120 unit development with rentals of apartments that may overlook some of the kids in the playground just across the street from this proposed three storey apartment. Both the increased traffic and high density development could cause the concern that that we see as a potential liability for children who may be in danger from either park parking or traffic problems, or are potential perpetrators located conveniently across the street looking down into the play yard. Emergency vehicles would be hard pressed to easily or easily or conveniently enter any of these apartments or preschool in the event of a fire or emergency. I see this as a perfect storm, which will impact these various stakeholders, including our children. This perfect storm may not affect the developers as much, though. In closing, I'm I'm also most concerned as a park advocate and visitor to family and friends in the surrounding park area about the parking. While two spaces have been promised for townhomes as required. I'm concerned that there will not be enough surface parking for visitors to this high density development, leaving guests to take up valuable and sparse available parking in the outlying neighborhoods. My concerns can all be wrapped up in the commitment that you, as representatives of our neighborhoods, have made to maintain the highest quality of life for the neighborhoods and your constituents. Our neighborhood will not benefit from such a potentially high density development, which is located a stone's throw from another 800 unit development whose building will coincide with this 195 South Monaco development at Lowry Boulevard one. Please do not approve this zone change nor use covenants or restrictions. They will not adequately provide protection of the character of our stable neighborhood. In my humble opinion, it will not enhance the livability of our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and thank you for your service to our city.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is John Huggins.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President, and members of Council. My name is John Huggins. I live at 35 Eudora Street in Hilltop. I'm here not representing the project, but just as a neighbor. My daughter and I are frequent users of Crest Moore Park. My four year old. We love to bike there. I'm very familiar with this area and the adjacent neighborhoods based on my experience and community and economic development. And as you've heard tonight, the site is not appropriate for its current zoning. That is, the current zoning is not does not allow for plausible development of the site, given that it must be resolved. And I think that this 75 unit proposal is an appropriate amount of density, an appropriate mix of uses for the site. Most importantly, I think having more affordable housing choices, a broader range of choices, the townhomes and the age targeted rental units will be a positive benefit to our neighborhood. Zillow reports that the average home value in the neighborhood that includes Crest Moorpark is $855,000. That's up 53% over the last four years from the bottom of the real estate cycle. And I think having less expensive, more affordable choices for people who wish to stay in this community and continue, continue their family life there is very important. And therefore, I would hope that you would support this proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay. Our next round of speakers Derek Coco. Venus. Bruce O'Donnell. Keith Whiteman. Richard Farley, Alan Singer, Monica Martinez, Marcus Werther, Amanda Cook and Jack Blumenthal. If you could make your way up to the front bench. Okay. Is Derrick nearby? Coco. Venus. Let's go on to our next speaker, Brousseau. Donald. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President, of members.
Speaker 13: Of the council. My name is Bruce O'Donnell. I live at 128 Eudora Street in Hilltop, and I'm here to speak as a neighbor in.
Speaker 4: Support of this rezoning application and urge your support of it as well. I would not have been in favor of the prior iterations of this. I think they were inappropriate in to dance and to intensive on the neighborhood. But this one has kind of been customized appropriately to fit into the Blueprint Denver niche that anticipates that there will be some change even in areas of stability.
Speaker 13: I want to speak with that in.
Speaker 4: Mind to two important topics tonight.
Speaker 13: I think in the general land use discussion in Denver, we often hear about how.
Speaker 4: Developers are unresponsive to neighborhood input.
Speaker 13: And that there's no way to hold their feet to the fire and get them to live up to their commitments. And this project.
Speaker 4: Which has been reduced by 45 units in.
Speaker 8: Reduced from four.
Speaker 4: Storeys to three and has targeted parking on monarch or excuse me, access on.
Speaker 13: Monaco. And in fact, capped density at 75 units is all in direct response to neighborhood input. And so this project is actually a good example.
Speaker 4: That neighbors can be heard and their good input can be valued in better results can be achieved because of it. Regarding the ability.
Speaker 13: To get developers to live up to their word and to.
Speaker 4: Protect their commitments.
Speaker 13: But not for your consideration tonight.
Speaker 4: But hand in glove with this entire effort is a protective covenant and a deed restriction.
Speaker 13: That the developer is proposing to place upon themselves to be bound by the commitments.
Speaker 4: Made this evening.
Speaker 13: And again for a city wide application. That's proof that there are tools available.
Speaker 4: The city doesn't have to.
Speaker 13: Enter into a contract.
Speaker 4: And the development that's been discussed.
Speaker 13: Tonight can be memorialized by a protective covenant, which in fact is what many of the neighbors and Chris Moore, the first few speakers tonight talked about that they have benefited in Chris.
Speaker 4: Moore filings one and two from the fact that covenants exist.
Speaker 13: That for the long term ensure the type of development that can occur. So the very tool that has made Chris Moore such a great neighborhood is available this evening. I also feel that.
Speaker 4: As has been discussed, Monaco is a busy arterial. This is not a place where single family detached homes facing.
Speaker 13: Monaco are going to work. One speaker earlier talked about how just a little bit south of here, closer to Alameda, there's been attempts at that that are failed. And this mirrors the scale of development on the east side of Monaco.
Speaker 4: And I ask that you approve it this evening.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Our next speaker is Keith Whiteman. Mr. Wightman. Key points. What is it? I can't hear you, Keith. Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, that's fine.
Speaker 3: It's. Yeah. Come on up to the podium.
Speaker 2: It's your turn. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 5: 6 minutes.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 3: 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: I'm glad we have that straight. I'm Keith Whitelaw. My wife and I live at 6300 East Cedar Avenue, 200 feet from the parcel under consideration. However, given some breaking news, I'm going to interrupt my planned talk and add a couple of points to the proposed and incomplete site agreement. Covenants just revealed minutes ago. The status of this site agreement and its terms are new to me and to the community at large. So much for developer collaboration. This thing evaporates in 20 years. 20 years is nothing to a community. Started in the 1930s and carefully protected for 70 years. As to the dollars 25,000 for enforcement. Thank you. Litigation is expensive and enforcement case like this could last years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I think the deficiencies of this notion would go on and on and hopefully others will speak to it. Back to the text. I'm a Colorado attorney with 40 years of experience practicing real property law. I've studied the facts, law and circumstances relevant to this case. I oppose this application as fatally flawed, legally and factually. It fails in the light of common sense. It mocks reason, the facts. The applicant, a multi-unit residential developer, bought this small parcel with no zoning contingency having despite having legal knowledge and actual no knowledge that it has continuously been zoned for single family residential use for decades. Further, he was informed by Councilwoman Mary Beth Susman that a previous attempt to rezone it for overly dense development had been vigorously opposed and and defeated. Yet he pursued it, assuming all risk, economic and otherwise, apparently assuming that as a developer for some reason he is entitled to a rezoning. He is not. You are mindful of the city's adopted plans and that as a matter of law, an application that fails to prove consistency with all of them is dead on arrival. In his overzealousness, the applicant has crafted an application that asks you to find all required consistencies. In this regard, this application deserves a very close reading. Some examples regarding criteria one consistency with comp plan 2000. In Exhibit F, Page 25, he claims that the rezoning will accommodate, quote, the needs and desires of Denver's current and future residents. The application applicant is merely reciting unsigned, unsubstantiated statements in order to fill in the blanks. He is feigning compliance. He cannot possibly offer any evidence of the, quote, needs and desires of unidentifiable future residents. An exhibit in Exhibit F, he claims that a, quote, change in zoning to SMU three not only increases the density on the site , but allows for more amenities like landscaped areas, places, plazas and open green space. Close quote foolishness. A simple review shows that the existing one storey church occupies less height and mass and space than will the proposed development. The truth rezoning will result in fewer of these and other amenities. The application is rife with such sham. Don't know how much time I have to give you the law, but it is important. In his unsuccessful attempts to to satisfy review review criteria to the applicant beginning on page 25, cherry picks requirements he addresses. Notably, he utterly disregards proof of compliance with Blueprint's key strategy at page 41, ensure quote compatibility with new and existing development and its Prime Directive in its quote, guiding principles. On page 141, respect valued attributes of the area, close quote. Recall Denver Zoning Code Division 3.2 Paragraph F Whenever this code places quote whenever this code places the burden of proof on an applicant, that burden shall be met by, at a minimum, a preponderance of the evidence. Here, the applicant offers absolutely no evidence. Skipping forward common sense. Consider the definition in the zoning code 13.3 dash for quote compatibility or compatible the characteristics of different uses or activities or designs that allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other without adversely affect compatibility. Oh. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development. Development proposals in maintaining the character and context of existing development, close quote. That's the long look at the proposed development. I'm going to look at Chris Moore. This application is insensitive in the absurd. You have no duty to this risk taking applicants profit projections. Rather, the application fails on the legal requirements and you have a solemn duty to deny it. I respectfully request that you recognize the fatal factual and legal deficiencies, the inequities pervading it, and the abandonment of common sense it begs and denial. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is Richard Farley, followed by Alan Singer and Monica martinez.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam President, and members of the Council. My name is Richard Farley. I live at 2500 Walnut Street in Denver, and I'm a professional planner and urban designer. And I'm and I'm an independent. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not quite sure why I'm here, but I do. But I'm not connected to the developer or to the neighborhood. But I do have a, um, you know, a love for Denver and for Monaco Boulevard. My Monaco Parkway. The Parkway really ends at this point. And it is more of an arterial than than a parkway. It's very difficult to have residences to be developed along it. And we can see the, you know, the aspects of that. Um, so this development I think is appropriate to the site. It's across from townhomes and seven storey apartment. It's matches the scale of the arterial. Um, you know, it's, um, you need to have something that's a greater scale next to a larger street. It's not really that high density anything. Small unit small parcels tend to get high numbers just because you get a few, you get 75 units on a little bit of property and all of a sudden you have a very high density number. But it's not it's not applied over a long, a big distance. So, um, you know, I think that the, you know, the development is a good one. It's within a half mile of the Lowry Town Center, within walking and biking distance. Uh, the architecture is sympathetic to the neighborhood, and, um, I think it would be a good, uh, entrance to the neighborhood just because it has parkway landscaping and the townhouses, uh, provide a detached walk and streetscape going into the neighborhood. So thank you. And I do support the project.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Mr. Farley. Ellen Singer. You have 3 minutes, Mr. Singer.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Members of the Council. My name is Alan Singer. I'm a Denver resident. I live at two and five South Kearny Street, several blocks from the proposed development. I've lived in this neighborhood since 1999. Councilman Brooks, earlier today, I heard you speak when the council was discussing the vacating of work right away at Elliot Street. And you mentioned that a petition of 20 people in favor of the vacation was a ton of support. Well, look out in the audience here and look at the number of 300 letters that have come in opposition to this zoning change. And I will tell you that that is a ton of opposition. And now, Councilman Brown, I heard you speak earlier about barbed wire, sir.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 4: I heard the council speak about barbed wire boulevard. We do not live in barbed wire boulevard, and we have not asked anybody to come in and enhance our neighborhood. Now, I would like to speak about the issue that I came to speak about. There are many religious and observant Jews that live in this neighborhood. It is one of three communities in Denver that has an era of we don't need to go into what that is. But its purpose is to allow observant Jews to observe the Sabbath and walk and carry things. We do not drive on the Sabbath on any given Friday night and Saturday. You will see numerous women, children, men, women pushing strollers. You will see young children riding their scooters. We do not have large sidewalks like in downtown Denver or other large cities. This is a single family zoned area with either no sidewalks or very small sidewalks. And as a result of that, we often have to walk in the street. This proposal upsets the delicate balance that currently exists between pedestrians and cars that are parked on the street. Now, I know we're not here to talk about Boulevard One, but that development factors in to the consideration about this one because it adds on to the density and it adds on to the number of cars that will be transferring through our neighborhood. And it's for that reason that I ask the council, even though you may have under the authority of certain zoning rules and proposals and development planning to approve this zoning plan, I ask you not to approve this zoning plan. The members of this community do not want this zoning plan. It is something that is being forced upon us in the name of community enhancement. No one has asked anybody to enhance our neighborhood.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Singer. The next speaker is Monica martinez, followed by Marcus Werther.
Speaker 1: Hi. Thank you, Madam President. And City Council. My name is Monica martinez and I live in Hilltop and I'm here tonight. My my daughter is actually at her grandma's, and I thought I was going to have a romantic dinner out, but instead I'm here and I'm here because I feel compelled to talk to you and to my neighbors about why I think this is an important project for our community. I'm concerned about affordability in Denver. You can look at the paper if if you still read the paper. I do. And see that affordability is an issue here. We have historically low vacancy rates in our rental properties and our home prices continue to increase year over year. And I think we actually are only second to San Francisco in terms of our home appreciation last year. So I as a resident, I'm concerned because I don't think that middle class families will continue to live in Denver . I don't think our seniors will be able to downsize and stay in Denver if we do not add supply to the mix. And so I think this project would do that. I also felt compelled to come because I wanted to remind people that we had the Great Recession, and it does feel like we're being besieged by development . When I drive through Cherry Creek, I do. I do not like all the traffic and the congestion of the development and the construction. But then I remember that for four or five years we had no development in the city. I remember there was one crane in downtown for a good number of years. And so I need to remind people I felt compelled to remind people that we had nothing for many years. And so right now, while we feel besieged, it's actually because we're playing catch up. And so I wanted to come and talk about that. I also wanted to come and talk about that. I do feel like this design is compatible with the neighborhood. I feel like the developer who I don't know I just met tonight has made concessions to the neighbors and worked back and forth with them to go from an initial plan to now 75 units with a mix of housing, of rental age restricted 50 units and 25 townhomes. And I heard our community planning development person talk about how this is compatible with the, the comp plan and blueprint. Denver And so I feel like our zoning documents allow for this development. So it's not it isn't a surprise. It shouldn't be a surprise. I feel like it's consistent with what is there. There's high density apartment across the street arterial I think we've heard this word before tonight so I think it makes sense there. And then just before I go, I just I want to say something about the rhetoric that has been going on. I think the discourse has been very negative. And and I would ask council to not be swayed by that. I do I do respect the passion of these neighbors. But I think that the discourse has not been civil at times. And I would ask that council recognize that, because if this zoning proposal isn't accepted, I do think that it could be used as a template elsewhere. And I'd be fearful of Denver if our neighbor to neighborhood discourse becomes very aggressive. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank. Thank you. Our next speaker is Marcus Werther, followed by Amanda Cook and Jack Blumenthal.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Men and women of the city council. My name is Marcus Werther and I decided.
Speaker 8: To throw South Monaco.
Speaker 4: Parkway, which is also known as Lakeside Lowry, which previously was known as Berkshires, and before that was Chris Moore. It actually recently was taken over by new management. I'm providing this testimony over here, not as a homeowner, but as a renter. You have heard or continue to hear pertinent testimony from homeowners about maintaining the integrity of this community. But there are other stakeholders. I think one of them wished to share my view. Denver is facing unprecedented growth and due to myriad of.
Speaker 0: Factors, has an extreme housing shortage. I'm acutely aware of this issue.
Speaker 4: As I've been subject to rate hikes of over 20% per annum and living in a in a state of constant uncertainty. I'm at a stage where I ought to be looking at buying my own home, but I can't. Housing. Housing is my single greatest source of stress. Of stress. And I'm not alone. This is why I was really excited to hear about Peter's development project. But when I heard when I attended the original meetings, it became very clear that it was not intended to help young people. It originally wasn't intended to help out old people. It's intended to be luxury units. His original price was 1600 to 20 $600 a unit. Originally, there was discussion about whether there'd be an elevator in the complex. That was when there was 120 units. Now there's 50 units. If this is going to be for the elderly and there's a lot of older, elderly, my complex, there's at least there's five people that I deal with between the age of 85, 95 that I help out regularly. These are people that, you know, they have to park in the garage. And parking is an issue because there's no parking on the street. They park in the garage because they need a spot, but they can't shovel their snow. And what happens is, because of their vulnerability, all of a sudden parking was just free. Four or five years ago. Is now like $75 per spot per month. And that's my fear really, is that if we're going to go ahead and build a complex over here aimed at old people at the elderly, and this is a new this is new. This wasn't addressed at the last meeting that I was had. You really subjecting the vulnerable in a very tight market, people who aren't able to move very easily. And, you know, I think there's a lot of issues here that need to be addressed. It's nice that, you know, he that that there were concessions brought on, but they're brought on at this meeting, at least to the knowledge of most of the people here. And I believe that's very unfair. And in my mind, there's no doubt that we're in an exciting period of Denver's history and the growth is happening and and things will change. But the way I see it is that this project is a litmus test for our city council, because whatever is built here will likely be here for a very long time. This will define the history or the future of Denver, to be precise. Most of because this complex over here, once it's built, will then go and be a way for more complexes to be built over. Monica And that in itself lends itself to a plethora of of of stuff. You know, I guess.
Speaker 3: You were there. Your time is left. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Amanda Cook, followed by Jack Blumenthal. Amanda Cook. Jack Blumenthal. Okay.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. And City Council persons. My name is Jack Blumenthal. I reside at 60 Ivy Street, Denver, Colorado. Professionally, I led the largest CPA practice in the United States related to the issuance and the restructuring of tax exempt housing bonds in the United States. We had a market share of over 90%. So I understand what affordable housing is all about and the importance of it, because that's how I built my career. I'm opposed to Project Cedar and Monaco and the really two issues. I've heard a lot of other good things, but I'd like to come back with with two things. One is that the problem with the proposed project is it's not consistent with maintaining the architectural vista and community atmosphere of Monaco Parkway as it extends from I-70 on the north all the way really down to Greenwood Village. And there are just no apartment houses that are three stories high. What's on the street across the street at Lex or what used to be Chris Moore Downs or really townhouses and the high rise buildings or are set way back so that people can't see them. And so this would impact the quality of life and the image of Denver to people who use Monaco Parkway, both residents and nonresidents. It's a crown jewel of the city. The second is that I believe in an extension of the existing townhome complex of the ten.
Speaker 0: Townhomes which are on the adjacent property would provide increased density.
Speaker 4: Without impacting Monaco Parkway. So I respectfully request that the current zoning change be denied at this time, so that a pod resulting in appropriate and smart housing rather than destructive development can be put on that location. And finally, I'd just like to make one other observation after having been here this evening, and that is if the neighbors believe that the developer has reached out to them and has talked to them.
Speaker 0: Why are they.
Speaker 4: Out here in so much force objecting to it? Thank you very much for your time and have a good evening.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Blumenthal. Okay. Moving along. Our next speakers are Gloria Cohen. Miss Ghana. Test Failure. Bob Cohen. George Swan. Mike Kabuki. Gary Tessler. Stacy Decker. Virginia White. And Bob Moody. Our first speaker is Gloria Cohen. You think she's down the hall? Please. Okay. Gloria Cohen, we're going to go ahead and see if she comes in. Okay.
Speaker 4: Up there she is.
Speaker 3: Oh, there she is. Okay. Thank you for letting me know that. Hi, Mr. Cohen. You have 3 minutes watching TV downstairs. Thank you.
Speaker 14: We think. My first impression of this metropolitan hommes crew was they were very professional. It was a project, was well-researched, well thought out, well presented. They have compromised and downsized and and followed a lot of instructions. I and there is no way that I can think of them as criminals. Excuse me for coming upstairs. So maybe they make a profit. What's wrong with profit? This is. And this is America. It's an enterprise system. And I hope they do make a profit. I think it's a it's a wise idea. We live on Monaco. It's called Christmas Place. It's a little circle of townhomes that are set back from from Monaco itself. So we it's it's a nice, quiet little area. We're blessed with the view from our bedroom window into that that foundation that was dug seven and a half years ago. It's been full of trash. Before that, it was a nice, peaceful, vacant lot. At least now it's white weeds broken. And then to the north of us, the daycare center, which is okay, uh, and that unsightly church with its broken slanted sidewalks, the weeds, the truly unsightly. So we think this is the most exciting idea that's come along in years for us. We've been there for 20 years and then Hilltop before that. So we're in the neighborhood and yes, there are changes. Yes, there's more traffic. It's city. It's going to change. Oh. We are very, very much in favor of this development. We think it's a it's the ideal situation. It's the ideal answer to get rid of the mud puddles and some of the unsightly other things as far as the endangered Jews in the streets. They will have nice, wide, flat sidewalks instead of the weeds and and the trash. So I would encourage the city council, please, to approve this rezoning. We think it's a wonderful plan and it's exciting.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Cohen. The next speaker is mosque is Miss Ghana. Test failure. How do I do? I pronounce your name.
Speaker 15: Mr. Garner testified in this class. Madam President, City Council, thank you very much for allowing me to share my thoughts on this rezoning application today. My name is Mr. Qantas Fire and my wife, two year old daughter and I recently purchased a single family home at 260 South Lyon Street, one block west and one block south of the property which is being considered for rezoning. Before we were married, we had and we had a child. My wife and I enjoyed city living. We embraced high density areas. We were big proponents of urbanization and efficient city living. We embraced my wife. Being a lifelong Denver resident, having grown up in North Park Hill, and I grew up southeast Denver, a little bit south, of course, more Moorpark. I personally lived in a condominium on the corner of 16th Street and Larimer Street for over seven years and served on the association. Board of Directors, Board of Directors four over four. We both enjoy city advantages such as public transportation, car sharing, bike sharing, and even the occasional ride sharing for a night on the town. In fact, I took a car to go to this meeting tonight. We're also huge fans of the Blueprint Denver Plan, which has designated this site as a stable and area and not on the table for rezoning. We relied on this plan and the zoning to buy our property because we knew Denver communities and officials mapped out a smart growth plan. I'm here today to oppose the rezoning of 195 South Monaco Street. I oppose this rezoning because of the things I just mentioned. Our city and state have invested a lot of taxpayer funds into public transportation and infrastructure that has made smart, smart growth possible. That infrastructure is not present in the area where this proposed development will take place to add unnecessary and unplanned and unwanted density to an area that does not have the appropriate public transit infrastructure simply reduces the quality of life for those that are already in the area. For example, based on my observations over the past year, living in a home on the intersection of South Lyon and Alameda, it will become a shortcut for the residents of this high density housing development during high traffic times. This increase in traffic could put my small child and other children on our block at risk for auto pedestrian accidents. These accidents are not hypothetical. They happen in our area as recently outlined in a Denver Post op ed. This is a very real danger for me and my family. Most of our lives we have wished to live in such a great Denver neighborhood like Crest, Moorpark. Many other young working professionals in Denver wish the same thing for when they settle down and raise a family. There's nothing wrong with having a low density areas within a city to allow for such a lifestyle. In fact, people pay premiums for real estate that can give them the location and family friendly environment provided by the Hilltop and Crest Moore Park neighborhoods. Rezoning this property will change the basic environment of the immediate surrounding development, surrounding area of the development. It will leave my family's real estate fundamentally different than what we planned our future on. Although this zoning change might provide a great investment return for a single real estate developer, it will leave those of us who made our real estate life investments based on historically stable, single family neighborhoods with much uncertainty. This is an inequitable proposition for us as Denver homeowners, based on the fundamental purpose of Denver's adopted plans alone, including Blueprint, Denver and the existing zoning code. The purpose of these plans is to provide predictability and stability and not uncertainty and speculation. We love Denver. We love Denver and that it's growing. We are glad people all over the world are waking up and recognizing how amazing this place is. However, Coloradans and Denver rights are smarter than just sticking as many residential units in every open, empty lot in order to make room for new residents. Therefore, I respectfully request that this City Council deny this rezoning application and defend the Blueprint Denver plan and the concept of smart city growth.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Bob Cohen. You have 3 minutes, Mr. Cohen.
Speaker 4: Thank you, madam. Yes, my name is Robert Cohen. We live at 245 South Monaco Parkway. So when everyone is talking about Not in my backyard, this project happens to be a half a block away from our backyard. And we all myself, we do support. Or you've already heard from my wife. She supports it as well, too. And there are several reasons, but I think what's important is I've sat through today or this evening so many objections that have been raised by people and many of them very concerned, very sincere objections. But let's deconstruct a few of them. Number one, the issue of let's save the existing building. Well, that one's gone away because the existing building is frankly an eyesore and basically needs to be removed some way or the other to save that piece of property. Two, it's going to bring additional traffic. I'd like somebody to tell me what project any place and in this city and county get Denver wouldn't bring additional traffic. There's one way to stop it. Tell the car dealers to stop selling cars for two years. We might have less cars on the road, but that is not going to happen. By the way, I might add that I've lived in this neighborhood for 40 years and I've lived at the current address for 29 years. So like many other people, and I do think it's very nice and appropriate to see so many Bronco fans here in front of city council this evening. And I think I do appreciate that. I'm a loyal fan. I think part of the issue is that we don't want renters apparently in the neighborhood. Well, look across the street because we do. It's right across from where we live. And there are over seven and I believe it's actually over 800 rental units that have been there because I used to live there many years ago myself. So there are a lot of renters in this neighborhood. The I might say that the and I do think it's a very sincere issue that and I'm looking at a picture over here that city council probably has not seen yet that was in the newspaper indicating a group of apparently Orthodox Jewish people on the way to the synagogue. There's no question that many people live at LAX, cross over Monaco and walk to the synagogues. And this is an important issue. The issue, however, is that, in fact, the block that we're talking about, which is one block right now with cracked concrete, with weeds growing around it and whatever. That's the one block that is going to be developed if this zoning is approved. So to say that and by the way, that picture was eight blocks down the road. I checked it out today. So the truth of the matter is that the picture that you're going to be shown is eight blocks away from where it is . I do request that you support this rezoning. I think it's appropriate. I think we need to zoned it right.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Our next speaker is George Swan.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chairman and council members. My name is George Swan and I have lived in Lowri since 2007. Had 180 Poplar Street. It's in a condo. We have about 160 units or so there. I am opposed to this bill and I think you should be too. I drive on Monaco and Quebec and Alameda every day. The traffic is a problem right now. The problem is we're looking out on 50 acres of development. Barclay annex has got 800 new units coming up. It's an unknown. When that was approved a few years ago, they said that the traffic was going to be a wash. There were 2000 cars that went to work there every day. And this wasn't going to be any problem because that's a dynamic situation. It's an unknown. And we're facing it right now. And, you know, we need at least a couple of years to digest the impact of this new development. If you approve this bill, then it's going to happen and which is going to be a double unknown on top of an unknown. If you oppose it now, we digest it. There's always time in the future. And that unit that's there now, that's an eyesore could get developed under the current code anyway. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mike Moody Judy. And while you're coming up, Gary Tessler, Stacy Decker, Virginia White and Bob Moody.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 13: Mike. 3130 or Night Street, Denver. 802200. I'm going to make this really quick.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 13: I live in the neighborhood. I live in Mayfair Park.
Speaker 4: Just on the north side of Boulevard One.
Speaker 13: And I'm in favor of this project. I think that it is a good addition to the neighborhood. I never mind having options.
Speaker 4: For housing in the neighborhood, and I think that it's a good.
Speaker 13: Asset for the community. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Gary Tessler.
Speaker 4: My name is Gary Tesla and I live in Winston Downs, which is catty corner to the area that we're talking about. I want to congratulate Bellwether City Council. You are rules are such that they're much more stringent than the Congress of the United States who isn't necessarily always civil to one another. I my I have no knowledge of development. I'm not a builder. I was a talk show host. But I do know what happens in neighborhoods with traffic. And I've watched it happen in our neighborhood. And we're getting to that perfect storm that people that people have talked about right now. If you try to make a left or right turn off of Virginia, on to Quebec, you may sit there ten or 15 minutes if it's during high traffic. Right now, we have people cutting through our neighborhood because they can't go straight on Monaco during high traffic areas, during high traffic times. We're creating a tremendous traffic problem and we're not facing it. We're not dealing with it. Quebec is two lanes from lete stale to Alameda from six. It becomes two lanes all the way to Stapleton. Monaco is a parkway on the other side of first with houses that face it and it's 30 miles an hour. You're not going to carry heavy traffic on that street. I want to know what the city council is thinking about in developing both those streets and spending that tens of millions of dollars it's going to take to buy right away. And to pave those streets because that's next. And that's what's coming up. And it better be faced. You can't just keep putting in small. This is a small development. I'll agree with that. But you can't keep putting in developments and not expect the problem to occur. And it's coming up very quickly. We don't know what's going to happen with the development in Lourey. That's 2000 cars. This is another two, 300 cars. With that much more traffic. What's the problem going to be and what kind of bills are you going to have to pass and what kind of money are you going to have to raise to pay for changing the traffic patterns? Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Tessler. Stacy Decker.
Speaker 4: I'm going to shake your shoes, your legs a little bit. I brought my own problem. I think I might be the only biker here today. My businessman knows how good I am. Thank you so much. Tonight, Madam President, and the entire city council. Your patience is amazing. I don't know if I could do your job. So, first off, I'm in support of the rezoning, mostly because of the changes that have happened from the original development through to involvement by the community. Having been through the ninth in Colorado redevelopment. I know what a blighted area looks like for a long term and you have no idea what's going to happen. I also know what the fear is with regards to having thousands of new people move into your neighborhood over a short period of time. This is a very short period of time. That's not me. This redevelopment is relatively small, yes, but it brings in a necessary infill. I've learned through years of experience everything that's happened in Denver, all the change, everything that's gone on, we adjust, we adapt. We are Denver and we do really well. I believe in density and I believe in fewer cars on the road, obviously, and I believe that we should have fewer parking spaces to actually enforce that. So thank you so much for staying out here tonight. Take the remainder of my time to please stand up for 2 minutes and shake your legs because you got to worry about deep vein thrombosis.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Virginia White, followed by Bob Moody.
Speaker 7: My name is Virginia Annette White. I live at 255 South Kearny Street within four blocks of 195 South Monaco Parkway. The site under consideration for rezoning. I'm a third generation Colorado, and I raised my four children in Chris Moore. I have two grown children who live within two blocks of this site. My older daughter and her family, including two children, live on South Monaco Parkway at Nevada. My youngest daughter and her two children live at the luxe apartment complex at South America Parkway, Cedar Avenue. I'm an active member of the Orthodox Jewish community. My husband and I walk to sit and go every Saturday, and on each of the many holidays, I take two of my grandchildren in a double stroller with me to synagogue. I am very concerned about the safety in our neighborhood. I see cars running, sign running, stop signs on Cedar Avenue. I have trouble making it across the intersection of East Cedar, Monica, East Cedar and Monica Parkway before the light changes. I actually have to run pushing the stroller. This is difficult for me. A grandmother in high heels on a couple of occasions.
Speaker 1: Cards.
Speaker 7: Come very close to hitting me and the stroller holding. Two of my grandchildren crossing the intersection, pushing the stroller itself. Monaco and Alameda is even more hazardous. This is a dangerous intersection not only for pedestrians, but also for drivers. This is a.
Speaker 1: High accident intersection.
Speaker 7: And I won't go through. You've already heard about the baby, the woman that got hit with her baby in this stroller. And that is really the human cost of identity. I do have a concern with safety while walking along the streets, crossing intersections near this site, considering that considering current traffic hazards we already have and considering the
Speaker 1: . Increased hazards if this site is re.
Speaker 7: Zoned for high density housing, the fact of reality is that the Jewish Orthodox community works on the Sabbath on holidays. Many are pushing.
Speaker 1: Strollers and.
Speaker 7: Though they shouldn't, many walk in the street because they are in large groups. We have children and adults with disabilities walking elderly people in wheelchairs.
Speaker 1: Grandparents.
Speaker 7: With their grandchildren. I am grateful to live in such a wonderful community, a community. But I remain very concerned for its safety. In addition to safety of the Jewish community, I am concerned for the well-being of all the families.
Speaker 1: Playing organized sports in Chris Moore Park to walkers and joggers and bicyclists, dog.
Speaker 7: Walkers, children attending the preschool directly across from this site and their parents and the school staff. Those enjoying the parks, playgrounds, baseball fields and tennis courts, and folks at the Chris Moore Swim Club. Safety for all is a reason to oppose the rezoning. My family and I greatly enjoy the character of Colorado. Denver Chris Moore. We enjoy the peace of the neighborhood and the.
Speaker 1: Chris Moore Park.
Speaker 7: This quality of life is the reason that I live here and will likely remain here for the rest of my life. When I purchased my home, I was told that Chris Moore is an area of stability. I believe that I made a contract with the city of Denver. I pay my taxes on time.
Speaker 1: And the city in turn preserves and protects Chris Moore's stable environment for.
Speaker 7: My children, my grandchildren, for me and time. Also great grandchildren. I feel that if this rezoning is approved, the city will violate this contract. The city will be changing the rules in violation of its adopted plans and doing so against the wishes of the great majority of the citizens in the neighborhood. I have walked the neighborhood canvasing and soliciting input from the Chris Moore neighbors as well as in the surrounding neighborhoods, including Mayfair. What I discovered was overwhelming opposition to this proposal. To this proposal. Although I'm very opposed to the current proposed rezoning. I am actually much more concerned about what a rezoning here would vote for the future if this rezoning is approved. A harmful precedent would be set with harmful consequences, increased congestion, greater likelihood of accidents, and a diminished quality of life for us and future generations. I respectfully urge you to do the right thing. The thing that fulfills the bargain that.
Speaker 1: City.
Speaker 7: Has made with its.
Speaker 1: Citizens and the thing that is clearly.
Speaker 7: Desired by the vast majority of the.
Speaker 1: Residents.
Speaker 7: Of this and surrounding areas. Please vote against this rezoning. Also, I wanted to say that Monaco Parkway is is a national registered historic site or a historic property. And to put this on the corner of Cedar and Monaco. It's just not right. It doesn't fit there. It doesn't fit the character of our neighbor hood. So thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss White. Bob Moody.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Her late evening, I guess. Madam President. Council members. My name is Bob Moody, and my wife and I live at 122 South Locust Street and we are the town homes immediately adjacent to the subject site to the west. We are original owners and the residents most impacted by the proposed development. And I'm here today to testify in support for a number of reasons, many of which you've already heard tonight. But first off, the site, as you know, is an unkept eyesore that we have tolerated for 18 years. It has been used for bus storage and occasionally in the winter bus sleeping quarters with generators that run all night. The parking lot is unpaved and the muddy drainage runs over our property and has caused our to make numerous fence and landscape repairs. The site needs redevelopment, but a redevelopment that enhances, not detracts from our property. Based on 45 years experience in real estate. I do not believe that single family development at this location on Monaco would be successful for many reasons that you have heard about tonight. We do not want the failed single family or townhome properties that exist to the south at Alameda. That would be a disaster for us. People will not pay premium prices to front on Monaco at this location with no views to say nothing of the access issues that you've already heard about. Again, based on many years of experience and specific discussions with former colleagues, I have come to understand that more and more of my generation are opting for rentals as opposed to the hassles of ownership. We applaud Metropolitans efforts to accommodate seniors, Jewish residents and others who want out of the home ownership conundrum. We also believe in Denver and its growth and vibrancy and understand that as a landlocked city we must embrace some increased density. Denver is in a housing crisis. Issues around density, construction defect law and other issues cloud the debate. Supply can't keep up with demand, and affordability is definitely an issue. The proposed project will, in a small way help in addressing these issues, in our view. I do take some exception to claims by the opponents that they have huge majorities of residents that oppose this project. They have never. They don't talk to the people or survey those who disagree with them. And many who are in favor are so afraid of the score in a report, reprisals that they don't respond and are unwilling to testify. My wife and I and three other of our residents have or will have signed an agreement which puts money in an escrow that you've already heard about from David Foster. This is to be used in the event the developer does not abide by his stated Maxim Dancer.
Speaker 3: Moody, your time is up.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I appreciate your support.
Speaker 3: Appreciate it. Um, our next group of speakers Kim CU, Sarah K Shanahan. Susan Stretton, Mike Ruder, Chrissy Estes, Faraci, Katie McCrimmon, Don Hambrick, Mateo Prado and Sean Walsh. Did you please come to the front? This to Sarah.
Speaker 7: Quickly, I have a letter.
Speaker 1: From another supporter who wasn't able to stay, if I could just add to that. And the record.
Speaker 3: Kept 3 minutes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Hello. My name is Kimberly Sara, my husband, two children and.
Speaker 10: I live at 6210 East.
Speaker 1: Cedar Avenue, approximately five houses from the church currently located at 195 South. Monica.
Speaker 7: Before I go any further, I want to.
Speaker 1: Disclose that I am currently employed as a senior vice president at Kroll Associates. Our firm is representing Metropolitan Homes. Who is the owner of the site in question?
Speaker 7: If, because of the circumstance you believe I have.
Speaker 1: No right to speak tonight, then please ignore the remainder of my remarks.
Speaker 7: I have a whole lot to say and 3 minutes.
Speaker 1: I'm going to save time by reading my comments. When we moved into our home in November of 2012.
Speaker 7: We were greeted by friendly neighbors all around. We met neighbors while shoveling snow. Our neighbors, who live across the street share gardening tips with my husband as they toil away together most days of the summer. We built a permanent steps.
Speaker 1: To all along our back fence so that our kids can talk to our neighbors kids whenever.
Speaker 7: They like. This is a great neighborhood. We enjoy the park, the mature trees and the generally quiet atmosphere, except, of course, during the frequently.
Speaker 1: Noisy parties at the Christmas Swim Club.
Speaker 7: In this, I think we share a lot of values.
Speaker 1: With our neighbors. As I watch.
Speaker 7: This project unfold over more than a year, it has become evident that there are extremely strong feelings in our neighborhood about this proposal. It is clear to me that my neighbors love their.
Speaker 1: Neighborhood and they are.
Speaker 7: Deeply frightened about the possibility of negative.
Speaker 10: Change occurring.
Speaker 1: This is understandable and I respect their desire to protect a place they love. I see this development very differently, though I see it as an asset to our community.
Speaker 7: Since the day we considered buying our home, I was disturbed by the dilapidated appearance of this church. It is common to see cars parked on the weeds.
Speaker 1: Last weekend I saw a mattress.
Speaker 7: Propped by the door for several days and the roof is peeling and appears unstable. I am a strong proponent of appropriately rezoning the site because it will help replace this dilapidated structure and we will gain something, I believe, to be very important. More eyes on the park and hopefully a great new.
Speaker 1: Set of friendly neighbors. You see, I am the mother of two daughters who want to spend time on their own or with friends in this beautiful public park.
Speaker 7: Outside of the few hours a day in the spring and.
Speaker 1: Fall when lacrosse, baseball and soccer practice and.
Speaker 7: Games are happening. Denver's Cress More Park is.
Speaker 1: Extremely underutilized when the time comes for them.
Speaker 7: To be on their own. I would feel a whole lot better knowing there are more guardians of the park. I also want to share our experience in a neighborhood we love dearly. Platte Park. In our former home, we lived across the street from a fully vacant block.
Speaker 1: When the time.
Speaker 7: Came for townhomes to go up, we feared the worse the street would get busier, our views would be blocked and the architecture would be poor. I am happy to report that while some of those things were true, the impact was far outweighed by the benefits of new neighborhood friends who helped watch our house when we were away and added to what we loved in our neighborhood. As a direct neighbor, I have reviewed the plans and renderings for this project and at the end of the day, I feel strongly that this redevelopment will be a benefit to my neighborhood, and I ask you to support.
Speaker 1: This rezoning in front of you tonight. And given my involvement.
Speaker 7: With the city for many years, I am aware of the criteria for rezoning. For the record, it is clear cut that this.
Speaker 1: Rezoning meets the Denver Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint. Denver and.
Speaker 7: As such is fully supported by CPD.
Speaker 1: Staff. Thank you for this time for your time this evening. And for those.
Speaker 7: Of you who think I shouldn't.
Speaker 10: Have an opinion as an impacted neighbor because of.
Speaker 7: My employment situation, you can safely.
Speaker 10: Turn back in now. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. Our next speaker is Kay Shanahan. You have. There you are. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And council members. I have two parts to what I'd like to share tonight. And I am against the.
Speaker 12: Rezoning to SMU. Three. My name is Kay Shanahan at 140.
Speaker 1: South Locust Street, Chris Moore, Vista Townhomes. Right between the church.
Speaker 12: Property and Chris Moore Park, Ground Zero, so.
Speaker 1: To speak.
Speaker 12: The proposed zoning change to allow a three storey apartment building with on limited units therein is in our backyard, literally. My husband and I own one.
Speaker 1: Of the nine townhomes on South Locust Street, just 60 feet from where this.
Speaker 12: Project may.
Speaker 1: Be built. Our Chris Moore townhome owners.
Speaker 12: Want a good new appropriate neighbor to replace the church property. Denver City Council. Please think of where you live today and imagine being in my shoes if you could on this.
Speaker 1: Looking east at a three story apartment building.
Speaker 12: 60 feet from where your back door is the same height as George Washington High School. There would be an.
Speaker 1: Additional approximate 12 feet of height.
Speaker 12: For roof objects.
Speaker 1: On this building.
Speaker 12: We townhome residents will be subject to the apartment.
Speaker 1: Resident smells.
Speaker 7: Noise.
Speaker 1: Sound of cars in and out of garages. Not to mention facing a sea of.
Speaker 12: Balconies and possible views into their.
Speaker 1: Bathrooms. The ability to grow vegetables, sun loving.
Speaker 12: Flowers behind our garages will be curtailed, most likely due to black sun from the height of the buildings. There is insufficient parking.
Speaker 1: With overflow parking.
Speaker 12: That goes right on to and will go on to our South Locust Street.
Speaker 1: And Cedar Avenue. Change is inevitable, but at what cost? I'm asking our quality.
Speaker 12: Of life and Chris Moore Park will be forever changed with this inappropriate.
Speaker 1: Development planned at 195 South Monaco Parkway.
Speaker 12: To make matters worse, there will be a life energy overflow.
Speaker 1: From all needed density and traffic.
Speaker 12: As a result of the 800 plus.
Speaker 1: Homes being built across Monaco Parkway Boulevard. One development The Old Berkeley Annex. A zoning change.
Speaker 12: To SMU three is just too much, in my opinion.
Speaker 1: Not a fit.
Speaker 12: For the stable, single family dwelling Chris Moore neighborhood, which blueprint Denver deemed solid. As recently as 2012, senior citizens could have their indicated desire.
Speaker 1: For single family patio homes.
Speaker 12: Here. Right on this.
Speaker 1: 2.3 acres of land area numbers showed that the need for apartments.
Speaker 12: Has been fulfilled by the lex previously Chris Moore downs across.
Speaker 1: The street, another Denver site. What is needed is the church gone and.
Speaker 12: New appropriate development of landscape townhomes, single family houses or granny.
Speaker 1: Cottages.
Speaker 12: That fits the setting of Chris.
Speaker 1: Moore Park.
Speaker 12: Please consider our neighborhoods desire for a development.
Speaker 1: Benefiting this stable.
Speaker 12: Residential area, not a plan to only line your developer's pockets. City Council Members. I close by asking you to ask yourselves why this developer refused to consider a project that the.
Speaker 1: Neighbors could support.
Speaker 12: Partner would with and would give a good return on investment.
Speaker 1: Please vote no on this rezoning to.
Speaker 12: Assume you three I have part to do this for the rest of my minutes. I'm also against the rezoning of SMU three. This zoning category does not limit the number of units that the developer can build on this site. If metropolitan homes gets the zoning change they are seeking, they can build a large apartment.
Speaker 1: Complex immediately.
Speaker 12: Adjacent to Chris Moore Park. And at one point, the proposed building is going to be as large as the Monica wing of George.
Speaker 1: Washington High School. The newest plans call.
Speaker 12: For an apartment building about as large as Sunrise Assisted Living.
Speaker 1: Building a cultural.
Speaker 12: Boulevard and Alameda.
Speaker 1: Avenue. The developers.
Speaker 12: Have said their building would be 260.
Speaker 1: Feet long, 70 feet wide, 40 feet tall, plus an additional 12 feet for roof objects. It is not appropriate to have a large monolithic building or on a site zoned for single family homes.
Speaker 12: Some questions I would like you to think about.
Speaker 1: Before you vote this evening. Why are the developers proceeding with a high density.
Speaker 12: Proposal when the opposition is overwhelming? Four separate surveys have shown.
Speaker 1: Overwhelming opposition, ranging between 76% and 90% of. Host Why is.
Speaker 12: This density appropriate for this area when there's.
Speaker 1: Nothing like it anywhere in Chris Moore Park, the prevailing density.
Speaker 12: In the Chris Moore areas.
Speaker 1: 2.6 units to the acre is.
Speaker 12: Proposed. Density is nearly 33.
Speaker 1: Units to the acre, triple.
Speaker 12: The proposed density.
Speaker 1: At Boulevard one and Lowry, just east of Monaco Parkway. Why won't the.
Speaker 12: Developers consider a project that neighbors can support? Neighbors have met with an.
Speaker 1: Architect and created.
Speaker 12: Lower density site models that would blend with our neighborhood of single.
Speaker 1: Family homes and develop a profit. Why did.
Speaker 12: The developer proceed with the purchase.
Speaker 1: Of $1.6 million of the property last October, when he knew.
Speaker 12: That the site was zoned for single family homes and that Chris Moore is an area of stability. According to Blueprint, Denver neighborhood leaders.
Speaker 1: And our councilwoman, Mary Beth Sussman.
Speaker 12: Have met with the developers.
Speaker 1: Far prior to the purchase and shared her many concerns. Why are the developers.
Speaker 12: Proposing inadequate parking and inadequate parking will force residents.
Speaker 3: To share. And your time is lapsed. Thank you. Susan Stanton.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My lack of a shirt probably, or an orange shirt probably gives you an idea of where I'm coming from on this issue. My name is Susan Stanton. I live at 87, 20/29 Avenue. I was actually one of the first residents in Lowry when Lowry was rumored to be many things that it hasn't become today. And my story is really my mother's story, because when we moved to Lowry, she left her community and called us Springs and moved to be with us. And so 17 years ago, she started on a journey in East Denver with us. She's moved six times.
Speaker 14: Because there there is no.
Speaker 1: Sorry. It's an emotional issue because she's now living with us, because.
Speaker 14: There are very few options.
Speaker 1: For seniors in East Denver. And so I encourage you to really think about the silent voices who are sleeping in their beds and.
Speaker 14: Would be the eyes watching the children at Crescent Park. And that would be my.
Speaker 1: Mother up on the third floor if there's an elevator, Mr. Cutler, I don't know if there will be one, but senior housing is so important in East Denver, and I've watched her move from the.
Speaker 7: Junior officer housing.
Speaker 14: That then was scraped, that was a rental.
Speaker 1: And then she moved to Amalie in Lowry, which was rental. Then she tried Stapleton rental product.
Speaker 14: And then we were lucky enough to be able to buy in Legends of Lowry when when construction defects hadn't really stopped condos. And she lived on a second floor unit. It was the only apartment we could find or the only condo we could find at the time.
Speaker 1: At 80 in December, she can't live in a second floor unit anymore. And so her choice was to move into our home. It's not her choice, probably her choice for the long term. And so you're really talking about shaping Denver for seniors and the adult children who are taking care of them. So I would.
Speaker 14: Encourage you to support this project and.
Speaker 1: Bring more senior housing into the area.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Mike Ruder.
Speaker 14: Madam President and fellow esteemed City Council members and neighbors. My name is Michael Ellen Ruder, but some people used to call me Mike, so that's okay. But I'm older now. I live at 245 South Locust Street, one half blocks south of the 195 South Monaco Parkway Parcel. And Susan, I'm so glad that I can follow you. We have a vision. We have a solution. I and I'm going to go through it, which is perfect timing. I oppose the steep rezoning of the current application of the parcel to SMU three. Our neighborhood is in favor of redevelopment of the parcel. We are yimby's. Yes, too smart growth in my backyard. We were eager to push the dialog beyond the simple know to the current proposed rezoning. So we put on our brainstorming hats and we launched a community wide effort to explore how to best redevelop the parcel, drawing on the many and diverse talents of our neighborhood residents, including expertize in land use planning, real estate, brokerage, real estate law and architecture. We performed a rigorous exercise which with, believe it or not, Legos. Our architecture expert guided us through the can that took the construction of different types of developments for the parcel. You can see them on this poster here. Our objective was very clear. We wanted to say yes to a plan that would be innovative 21st century. Provide a vision, provide a new solution to a growing housing challenge for Denver, and be consistent with the precepts put forth in Blueprint Denver which protect, preserve and enhance neighborhoods like ours , which are designated as areas of stability. We can. We constructed four models which are shown on this poster. We explained these designs to the greater community at a neighborhood meeting on May eight that became MH synagogue. We asked the 200 attendees for their feedback, soliciting both comments and also their preferences in the form of a ranking vote . Most preferred or first place to second place. The third to the least preferred or to fourth place. I'll explain the models first and then I'll share with you the results of the community's rankings. I want to point out that these are simply models. These are building blocks, Legos. These are not permanent ideas. These are for brainstorming. It's a point of departure. Model one, please. On the on the top left shows a bird's eye view of a design that includes five single family homes plus a small park. That's this guy right here. This model is consistent with the current single family zoning designation of E dash. As you dash d x, the parcel can be redeveloped right now. Tonight, we can break ground using this type of plan because there's no need to rezone. Model two on the top right shows a perspective view of a design which is similar to that of the developer. It includes an apartment building and townhomes. 75 units in all this design is the one that requires the steep rezoning of Shenmue three the proposal before you tonight model three on the bottom left shown here is a perspective view of a design of townhome structures which cover the entire parcel 26 units in total. This approach would require an up zoning as well, but a much more moderate designation of E than 2.5. Finally, model four on the bottom. Right. This is the one that's really cool. Shows a bird's eye view of a new approach to single family housing with what we call a granny twist. I wrote this before I knew that you were going to be talking. Really? There are eight single family homes which are shown in yellow, plus the five, the single single family homes with auxiliary dwelling units. These add use or additional dwelling units are what we're so excited about. The homes in with the ADU use are actually zone in a manner which requires the homeowner to live on the property, either in the main house or in the granny flat or the carriage house or the adu that's in the back. The other building can be used either as a home office or as a home for an aging relative who wants to live independently, but maybe not to an independently or even for a boomerang child who comes back home in their. Twenties. This is a solution which does require an up zoning but is moderate. It's consistent with Blueprint Denver and with our neighborhood. So when we asked everybody what they thought about it, that fourth option was the one that won. It garnered 70% of the first place votes. We were surprised by that. We really expected the status quo to win and it didn't. This shows that our neighborhood is saying yes to my backyard, yes, let's do something. We all want to see something new, but let's make it right for us. So let's partner let's partner with you. And let's build something that is 21st century. It's going to answer an extreme housing problem that we do have. And it'll be and an avenue to your being able to have a whole new niche of new developments that you can build all over the city in many different synagogues, temples, churches that are all that that may ultimately get sold. It's a whole new opportunity for you. Please reject this zoning proposal. Let's find one. That's right. For all of us. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. That woke me up for sure. Okay. Just kidding. Okay. Chrissy Estes Faraci. And she left. Katie McCrimmon.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Katie McCrimmon and I live at 200 South Kearney Street, just a few blocks from this site. And I am a representative of the Kress Moorpark R.A.. It's a little confusing. And Chris Meyer, we actually have three rhinos. So you heard from two of the others at the very beginning. And our R.A. actually includes this property. And we went door to door. I even surveyed I don't know where she went, Kim Cassara, my neighbor, we had a great chat about how she really liked higher density and how we disagreed, but we went door to door to survey. The results were overwhelming that our neighborhood opposed this and then we've done more surveys. So the gentleman was concerned that we haven't offered people the opportunity. We did an online survey that was open to the public. Anyone could fill it out. That too was overwhelming, with about 94% opposed. And we had we were really impressed. We had people who provided their names because we wanted you to know that these are real people. And we turned in some of the comments from that. So I really appreciate your patience, most especially our councilwoman. This has been a marathon. It's a marathon tonight. And I'm sorry because we didn't want to do that. But it's also been a marathon for the past 15 months, and she's hung in there with us for some many, many meetings. But one thing I need to tell you is that, unfortunately, as much as they say they've been working with us, that hasn't been the case. They have never held a public meeting. We have. I've paid for them and so did some of my neighbors. We had public meetings when we did this Lego project. We were really excited. We invited them to come and unfortunately they did not. So when they've told you that they've been working with us, it's important to look at the details because unfortunately they have not. We did first hear from Mr. Kudla and Mr. Foster about 15 months ago, and unfortunately he had his mind made up on a project at that time, and he came in and he told us, this is the project we're going to do and we just may have to disagree. And we were really surprised to hear that since the site was owned, single family, as you know, Mr. Foster also at that time shared with us that his kids had played soccer for ten or 12 years in Cross Moore Park, and he was well aware of the congestion problems on Saturdays and even said to us, you're taking your lives in your own hands. So, you know, on those weekends. So it's surprising that they would want to add high density when we already have a situation like that. I want to clear up some of the of the facts that you've been hearing. Well, some of the unfortunately, their myths that you've been hearing tonight. Let's talk first about this issue of the deed restrictions. They did come to us a little while ago and showed us this document. And unfortunately, it has this very big exit clause. It has a hole. And so nobody from any of the RINO's was willing to sign this. It's also like private zoning. I think that they wanted a different zoning category, but because they wanted to move this through, they didn't want to take the time to start over. And I can understand that that would be frustrating. But it's it isn't fair to our communities to expect us to become zoning and planning and enforcement officials. That's why we have our city government. And so they couldn't find folks among the representatives in the leaders to sign these documents. And they found a couple of individuals who say they'll sign them. And I feel they have a very big responsibility if they're going to try to enforce them. So I don't know that I think that's a bit of a distraction and I hope that you'll see it for what it is. OSTER Also, Mr. Maley referred to context and I think it'd be great if you took a close look at that because the context of our neighborhood, the entire crisis in our neighborhood, with the exception of a couple of sites that they cherry picked, is the context where the urban edge and they picked, says suburban zoning. And we think that was because they wanted to do a bigger project. There's really appropriate urban edge zoning. You've heard about it tonight. Probably the most appropriate would be the th2 point five. But, you know, we we do have good opportunities and there are good zoning categories or a PD. I understand you're not crazy about PEDs, but it's a possibility that we could do it. I also want to talk about this myth of and that this is going to be affordable. What he's doing, I wish it were. We had a home and Chris Moore that went under contract in an hour for like $800,000. It's the original ranch and that isn't affordable. I mean, I have plenty of friends who would like to buy and Chris Moore and the young man who spoke who's at the Lex Mr. were there. He said he'd love to buy a single family home on Monaco because it might be a way to get into the neighborhood. So in addition to maybe finding opportunities for some of our elders to have, you know, the opportunity with the carriage house, a home on Monaco might actually be a more affordable option than these rentals. He is not doing affordable rentals. So we have to look at some of the details on that. We're concerned about the parking. You know, the overall numbers on the parking might look a little better. Each townhome has two a garage spaces. That makes all the sense in the world. That's great. Unfortunately, the apartment complex part of this only has 58 underground units for 50 units, and that's underground spaces. Sorry, for 58 units. And that just isn't enough. I wish we had light rail. We don't there's no plan for it. And so this parking just isn't enough. Thank you for your incredible patience. Thanks for looking at the details. And we appreciate you.
Speaker 3: Appreciate it, Don Hambrick. Mateo Prado. Prado. Pardo.
Speaker 4: Madam President. Council members. I'm Matteo Pardo. I live at 6130 Cedar Avenue with my wife and 15 year old daughter, and I'm against the proposal for rezoning at 195 Monaco Parkway. The entire premise it rests on is flawed. The parcel in question is not an infill. Despite what others have said. It's not. It's an integral part of our neighborhood. We don't suffer from rundown housing or poverty. We don't have you know, our vacancy rates are are low. So is unemployment. Public facilities are not are not distressed. We're not in a transportation corridor. We don't have transit stations. Our public facilities are not distressed. And I said we don't meet the criteria for a small area plan. And according to Blueprint Denver, our neighborhood, including the pastor, is an area of, as you heard many times before, an area of stability. We walked through all of this with with Councilwoman Mary Beth Sussman. And the current zoning, the zoning that was reviewed, just reviewed just a few years ago is is appropriate and it shouldn't be changed . Now, recently, Mr. Gaspar, the Planning Department has floated the idea that every neighborhood should have a small area plan. I really don't know what that means. Does it mean that the criteria don't matter? Does it mean that you, you they matter when you want them to and not when you don't want them to. Doesn't matter. Does it mean that you can pick and choose? I don't know. In any case, I just wanted to say something else about the church. It's. It's it's the work. The main part is. Is the work of a remarkable modernist architect. It's the venue of a thriving Baptist congregation that saw the integration of our African-American and Jewish communities. So please don't let it be replaced by a wall of of apartments that'll only add to our traffic part of our traffic problems. Now, I don't want to go on and on about traffic, but Mr. Cutler hasn't even given us a credible traffic study. I, I guess he's relying on the 2012 Matrix Report that was commissioned by the Lourey Redevelopment Authority. The Matrix report, of course, wasn't meant to to analyze the traffic impact of Boulevard One, not this proposed project. And furthermore, it's flawed just two ways in which it's flawed. It doesn't provide us with the output numbers. The numbers that it bases its conclusions on are not in the report. And it doesn't analyze either the vehicular or pedestrian traffic at the intersection of East Cedar Avenue and Monica Parkway, the intersection where this parcel where the rezoning is being requested is located. And that alone should make the report useless, so far as this is concerned. Now. One of the things about this dispersal that puzzles me is the way the intersection of East Cedar Avenue in Monica was the only direct outlet onto Monica for our neighborhood. It's also the only one of only two places where cars can enter or leave the Lexus at Lowry. And it's the only one that has a traffic signal. And it's right next door to the 800 residential units that are coming coming online at Boulevard One. So this raises several questions. How are cars going to enter and leave the proposed development? Is transportation going to allow cars exiting the apartments to cross two lanes of southbound traffic on Monica in order to enter the northbound lanes or allow cars to enter the site from the northbound lanes on monica, is the fire department going to demand a curb cut on locust or cedar? Jim Bishop, Mr. Cutler's architect, told us that the fire department, instead of asking for a far lane, would, would, would using it alongside a fire hose really, anyway? To make matters worse, there was a gang related double homicide at elected Lowry this past March there. There's a lot. It would probably it probably involved the Crips and the Bullets. Two young men were killed. What are gangs doing in the legs? Anecdotal evidence. Rumor would have it that they're fighting over new turf. Well, now, crime in the Hilltop Statistical District, as defined by the Denver Police Department, has gone up by 119% this year . Burglaries alone have gone up by 350%. That's a much greater increase than any of the statistical neighborhoods around us. A very inconvenient 2010 University of or Indiana University study found that, quote unquote, high density housing units promote serious violent crime while there they put neighborhoods at risk as poor as Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner, recently put put it in The New York Times. When big money moves into a desirable neighborhood. It destroys the things that made that neighborhood desirable. Well. All right. I've heard.
Speaker 3: What, Mr. Pardo. Your time is up.
Speaker 4: Well, I thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is Sean Walsh, and you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 13: Wow. Good evening, Madam President. Council members. My name is Sean Walsh.
Speaker 4: And I live at.
Speaker 13: 1065 Emmerson Street. I'm here mostly on behalf of all of my all my own behalf. But first, I'd like to read a letter into the record from my mother, Sharon Walsh, who lives in filing two at 475 Carney.
Speaker 4: Street, which also happens to be the place I grew up and lived for for 20 years. Dear Denver City Council Members. In 1972, I.
Speaker 13: Bought my Crest Moore home at 475 Carney.
Speaker 4: Street and have continued to live there ever since. Gone are the days when a big wheel.
Speaker 13: Fixed every kid's bike Allard's drugstore provided ice cream sodas.
Speaker 4: And filled prescriptions. The Texaco station filled our gas tanks $0.36 a gallon. Bob's Barber Shop cut our hair and the bookstore kept us reading. Yes, a lot of things have changed in the.
Speaker 13: Past 43 years. Nixon is no longer president. Other things less.
Speaker 4: Tangible have changed as well. The retail, which we embraced in the past, is hard fought today. Third in Holly and Cedar and Holly both faced overwhelming opposition, which thankfully was unsuccessful. Two new, thriving neighborhood neighborhood businesses that cater to young and old.
Speaker 13: These amenities attract new families to our neighborhood, which is evidenced by the continual new housing and reinvesting.
Speaker 4: Reinvestment in the housing stock.
Speaker 13: Today we are face facing the same.
Speaker 4: Opposition for the development of.
Speaker 13: A needed housing mix development.
Speaker 4: On the end of more park.
Speaker 13: I currently live.
Speaker 4: In a single family home, but I appreciate the opportunity for a living situation where I could live affordably.
Speaker 13: Into retirement in the neighborhood I've called home for so many years. I strongly support the proposed rezoning of.
Speaker 4: 195 South Monaco.
Speaker 13: And I encourage you to do so as well. The time has come for Denver to zone all.
Speaker 4: Of Denver in an.
Speaker 9: Intelligent and.
Speaker 4: Insightful manner. Sharon Walsh 475 Carney Street.
Speaker 13: And if I could just add a thought of my own as a long time resident, there have been lots of periods of build.
Speaker 4: Out during the 1970s and of this sliver of the neighborhood were appropriate for single family. We would have seen it by now.
Speaker 13: Thank you very much for your time. And please, I encourage you to.
Speaker 4: Approve this rezoning.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Our next group of speakers, if you can come up to the front bench. The first one is Patrick Allen, Stacie MacDonald, Barbara Volpi, Michael Hicks, John Tyrone's, Rick Stoddard, Chris Davis, Amy Hook and Mark Nestler.
Speaker 4: Hi. Hello. Madam President and members of the Denver City Council. Thank you for allowing me to make a few comments about the rezoning application at 195 South Monaco at the busy intersection of Cedar and Monaco. My name is Patrick Allen and my wife and I live at Increase Moore Vista. Ground zero, right in the middle. 60 feet from where this proposed apartment building is going to go in. We very much love living there. We've lived there since 2015, but I've seen some changes really sadly here in the last few years and especially these last ten months like to chat with you about. I'm very opposed to the rezoning and relieved that this decision hour is upon us. These last ten months has really divided our neighborhood. Ever since Metropolitan Homes brought this property some ten months ago, our beloved community and neighborhood is starting to come apart, and understandably so. We are talking about our homes, our community and our neighborhood. The only good thing that has come out of all of this turmoil is that our neighbors have grown closer. You've met a lot of bright people, and I got a chance to meet with them and I enjoy that. Regretfully, in some cases, we've become much further apart. It seems like we have development lobbyist and retired development lobbyist. Living in the neighborhood or friends or business associates of the development. They're not they're very out of sync with what this neighborhood wants. I want to speak with you a little bit about community and what it means to live in one of Denver's legacy neighborhoods. I'm an Army Reserve officer now, retired. But in March of 23, I, along with thousands of military reservist, were ordered to active military duty for our country's invasion into Iraq and the ongoing war in Afghanistan . I had two weeks to get my affairs in order, which meant closing down my business and laying two of my employees off. I gave them as much severance as possible and transferred my clients to one of my trusted competitors. My duty assignment was at the Pentagon and at the Army headquarters. I was only supposed to be there for six months, but obviously Undersecretary of Defense Wolfowitz, Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney's idea that the Iraqi war, that we would be welcomed as liberators way off the mark. Within ten days of our invasion, it was obvious that I was going to be there more than six months. My six months turned into two and a half years. We sold our home here in Washington Park and Park Hill and moved to beautiful Alexandria, Virginia and bought a townhome. It was a privilege to live in our nation's capital, but we missed Colorado and the communities we lived in. Washington Park and Park Hill. DC is very transit. Military members coming and going. Government workers coming and going. Every time the administration changes, the whole neighborhood changes. Political appointees coming and going. And thousands of lobbyists. Living there. It was not a community and we didn't know each other. Soon as we came back to Denver, I had a great real estate agent who was our friend and I asked her that I wanted to live in a community. She immediately knew what I was talking about. We looked around, but we came to Crest Moorpark, and I knew about Crest Moorpark. It was always up there, one of the places I wanted to live in. And Councilman Brown, it reminded me of when we both lived together in Washington Park on Vine Street. That was a community. We knew each other, took care of each other. I was very happy. We were spot on since we moved in. My neighbors had a very nice welcome. Who are you? Welcome. We had older people. We take care of them. Invite them over. Make sure that they're. When their husbands passed away, we would just jump right in like they were our own. We did our due diligence on the property and we knew that that property next to us. What's the deal here? It was zoned for one acre or whatever. Single family homes. That's what we bought this place. Now we're going to change the rules. Come on. No one wouldn't want somebody doing that to you. We can. We want the place developed. But as for single families townhomes, we met with the guy who developed our townhomes land, Cheyenne. He had a beautiful layout. How it was done. This idea that people won't buy homes on Monica. I'm not buying into that. Just walk over to Fourth and Josephine. Those townhomes are right on a very busy street. They have a berm. They put some time into that. They did a good job. I'm sure those people love living there. What I really liked about where I'm living is the diversity. And just the park itself. That first weekend, I watched Mayor Hickenlooper.
Speaker 3: Mr. Allen, I'm sorry. Your time is up.
Speaker 4: At three or 606.
Speaker 3: Minutes.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Stacey MacDonald.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Distinguished Council members. My name is Stacey MacDonald. I live at 5022 Mont View Boulevard, which is also.
Speaker 7: A historic.
Speaker 1: Boulevard. As a matter of fact, the property in question is not on the historic boulevard, and the Monaco.
Speaker 7: Parkway runs from first.
Speaker 1: To Mont View Boulevard.
Speaker 7: With that said, I am a certified residential real estate appraiser. I have been so for 17 years, and I've been in over 10,000 properties.
Speaker 1: I live within.
Speaker 7: Three miles of this property and I want to be make something.
Speaker 1: Pretty clear. I understand everyone's concerns about saying that Chris Moore should be zoned single family. This particular property, though, that is not a question.
Speaker 7: When highest and best use is being delivered or being developed by a residential real estate appraiser. We do not pay attention to zoning. We look up and down both sides of the street.
Speaker 1: And find out what's around. In this situation, there are no single family residences to speak of that would indicate that highest and best use for this property is single family residence. With that said, if a property was there and it was zoned single.
Speaker 7: Family residence, the appraisal would be marked highest and best.
Speaker 1: Use is not.
Speaker 7: Single family and most likely.
Speaker 1: There would not be financing done on this property, which indicates that if a single family residence was to be on this property, there would be no conventional financing for that property and someone would have to pay cash. A very unlikely scenario. It not only in this price point, it would have to be well over $1,000,000 for that to take place. And I think that we're all pretty clear that $1,000,000 property is not going to be profitable here on this property. With that said, again, I live in on Mont View Boulevard and we were equally as concerned about this Stapleton development negatively impacting us with traffic. And that just has not been the case. We still have the same charm and the same great neighborhood that we always had in South Park Hill. And I think that a lot of fears and concerns are unfounded.
Speaker 7: I think that most development that has happened, at least in my neighborhood, we have found.
Speaker 1: Even though that it has come up against great opposition. Now, those.
Speaker 7: Are beloved properties in my neighborhood.
Speaker 1: So thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss MacDonald. The next speaker is Barbara Volpi.
Speaker 1: Madam President and council members.
Speaker 11: Thank you for staying awake. This is really amazing. And lest my people confuse you, I'm one of the orange guys, and I'm asking.
Speaker 1: You very seriously to vote against this zoning change. I'm one.
Speaker 11: Of the council.
Speaker 1: Members was quoted in the paper this weekend as saying that 10 to 15.
Speaker 11: Years of development has happened in about one and a half to two years in the city, and everybody is overwhelmed. And I think that's a very astute observation. I want to say just refute a few things that have been said. I don't think there's a need for this kind of diverse housing in that spot, because all a person has to do is.
Speaker 1: Walk across Monaco to Boulevard one.
Speaker 11: Which is a.
Speaker 1: Huge.
Speaker 11: Very dense development that has a wide range.
Speaker 1: Of housing opportunities and housing prices.
Speaker 11: There. So I think I think that's not a valid point. And I.
Speaker 3: Also think.
Speaker 1: We need to let the dust settle a little bit on the huge development of Boulevard One, which is now just coming online and the huge development in Cherry Creek because Chris Moore is.
Speaker 11: Right in between those two.
Speaker 1: And certainly when Lowry came on, it hugely increased the traffic through the Chris Moore neighborhood and Boulevard. One is going to do the same thing coming right out First Avenue, straight across into Chris Moore. So I would invite you to consider taking a deep breath and saying this zoning decision can.
Speaker 11: Wait until we we let.
Speaker 1: Some dust settle. I don't think it's a.
Speaker 11: Choice of a single family versus this.
Speaker 1: Very high density thing. I think there's something in between that can happen.
Speaker 11: It hasn't happened yet.
Speaker 1: And that's why I ask you very respectfully to vote no on this.
Speaker 11: And thank you again for your patience.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Michael Hicks.
Speaker 4: It's getting late. Madam President. City Council. I've been here a few times. Talk to you about development. I hope John Elway is watching Channel eight. I haven't seen thus much orange in the room in a long time. I am for this development. I came here as a volunteer. I'm an architect. I live in Observatory Park University Park, about two blocks from my neighbor, Charlie. And what you're going to vote on tonight is critical is critical for this city. And I am afraid of what's happening here. You've got a developer, Peter and his partner, who have tried and reduce the density and come up with a design. Peter, who has developed a walkable, livable community in the suburbs. He's hired an architectural firm with a 50 plus year legacy of award winning design. It's a beautiful design. It's a great site plan. It does a lot of things that the neighbors have asked. And you want to tell him? No. And your staff, your staff, professionals, urban planners, architects, landscape architects. They work for 17 months on this project. Blood, sweat and tears. They work with you on a lot of different projects and you want to say it's not good enough. And the message you're going to send to the world, whether you're a local architect, a local planner, you come from out of town. You develop and design a beautiful scheme on a great site. And you're going to allow the neighborhood to come in with their Legos and play Mr. Potato Head. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? This is not right. This is not correct. This is your decision. And I will tell you. Be careful what you do tonight. Think about this. This is about the future of Denver. The architecture outside of this building was done by visionaries. Single visionaries. If you want to take a racehorse and if you want to get a committee to redesign it, you're going to wind up with a camel. I am telling you, visionary architects, developers who listen to the community, developers who know what they're doing. You can't take a piece of property and revision it unless you own it, unless you take the risk.
Speaker 3: To fix your time yourself. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. My next speaker is John DeRose, followed by Rick Stoddard. And you had.
Speaker 4: A good evening.
Speaker 3: You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Good evening, John de Wrongs. I live at 40 Kearny Street on the north side of the park. I also happen to be a longtime real estate appraiser. That's amazing. We have two here tonight. I I believe that zoning, in a sense, is a compact with the community. This was a compact made just in 2010. It was affirmed. Single family. You want to let neighbors know what they can expect and ensure some compatibility of use. Now I like to measure stuff, but I'd like to share some numbers with you that are shown on this chart. The applicant is talking about confining 50 units to one acre on this site. So what is the density increase more? It's three units per acre. Across to the west in Lowery Smart Growth Community. A wonderful place. Five units. Are we at 50? Not even close. How about New Lowry Boulevard? One proposed houses going their way. 11 units. I mean, the LAX, the only multi-unit community is half the density of 50 units per acre. Where do you find 50 units per acre? We know where it is. There's a project at 16th in Colorado. It's on a state highway to Colorado Boulevard. Those arterials can handle the kind of traffic that this that these kinds of projects where you where you condense and you can find population to small areas can handle. This is a residential parkway. Other zoning categories can guarantee compatible use on this site. This category is suitable for commercial areas or an established multi-unit area, or Colorado Boulevard for that matter. Not in the XMR neighborhood. There's no doubt that multi-unit uses would dramatically change the character and. Okay. This is two blocks from the historically designated Parkway. Nobody. Nobody looks at it that way. And why shouldn't we extend that historic parkway 4 to 3 blocks to Alameda? We've got a project on one side that's brand new, new, new, new trees and so forth coming in. We can extend that historic parkway. Single family homes have been the use for over 100 years along there. Some will argue that Monocle Parkway is no place for single family use. But guess what? In the last two years, since 2013, there have been 58 single family sales on this section of Monaco. That's two per month. It's one of the most active residential areas. And why? Because lots of folks find that they can afford a home along Monaco and be in some of these neighborhoods. They can afford it within the area. The lonely house that somebody met mentioned a couple of times. That's in the bottom left hand corner. Somebody said this was blighted. Well, tell that to the buyer. They paid 510,000 for this at the end of 2012. The reason that it's it looks strange to people. It's sitting there by itself. Now, some people say this isn't a sustainable use. And I think there's an argument for that single family like this. But single unit means also townhome. It means some of the alternatives we've described here. It doesn't it doesn't have to be multi-unit. It doesn't even have to be detached homes. It could be attached homes. And it could provide some alternative. By the way, with what is a 40 foot high structure look like on a half block of Monaco. Somebody alluded this before. I mean, keep in mind that we have four homes on South Locust that are about 20 feet high, just on the block south of this project, 25 feet high. If you confine confine 50 units, this is what the kind of density and look you're going to get. Does that seem compatible? The eve right here is 44 feet slightly higher. But you get the idea. I mean, this is when you can find it to an area on Colorado Boulevard. This is perfectly compatible. A monolithic structure like this. But. But no homeowner here should suddenly have to live across the street or next to a structure of this size. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is John Studdard, followed by Chris Davis.
Speaker 4: Madam President, members of the Council, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ric Stoddard. I live on Jersey Street. And Chris Moore. Several years ago, a close friend of mine, a former member of the city council, told me the secret to being a good council member is learning how to sleep with your eyes open during a public hearing. My congratulations on your stamina and thank you for your devotion. I'd like to talk for a minute about process. I, for one, am disappointed in the tactics that have been come popular in our city in these development battles. The first meeting has been labeled by the project opponents as contentious with subsequent meetings and getting more civil. That's because anyone who came to that first meeting and was open minded or let alone positive, was shouted down immediately, almost threatened. I think a close look at the record shows that any project supporters simply did not participate. After that, they did not want to exist in that kind of a hostile environment. I would suggest you look at the emails. Look at the survey itself. If you said you were in favor of this project in that survey, you were not allowed to fill out any more questions, any more answers. But don't take my word for it. Look at the email. Look at the survey. This was simply a lobbying effort to turn out opponents of this project. I really think that's too bad, because if I was in your position, I'd be very interested in what a true objective and impartial analysis of the residents of Crestwood think about this project and particularly this particular intersection. This type of intimidation is not the way to govern a great city. And don't misunderstand me. I think everyone in this room should be allowed to lobby fully on whatever their belief is. But what you should not be allowed to do is cast yourself as an impartial observer of an entire neighborhood, when in fact the process you engaged in was anything but. The opponents of this project say they would like to serve the suburban character of the neighborhood, and I love that, too. But we have to remember that 60 to 85 years ago, this was the suburbs. It no longer is. It is squeezed between two great urban developments, Cherry Creek and Lowry, which are success stories in our nation. It's a bladed side.
Speaker 3: Mr. Stoddard, your time is up.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is Amy Hook. And then Mark.
Speaker 5: Christie.
Speaker 3: Apologized to Chris Davis and then Amy Hook.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President, and members of the council. My name is Chris Davis and my wife and two children. I reside in Fourth and Monaco Parkway, just three blocks north of the park, of course, Moorpark. I'm a practicing architect of 20 years and an owner of bus architecture here in Denver. Actually, one of my first projects in Denver was an adaptive reuse project for Mickey's Zeppelin, where we converted the old Yellow Cab building into the original taxi building a phase one taxi. So my livelihood depends on development. I support thoughtful and intelligent infill projects, urban density change and creative thinking when it comes to zoning. However, I'm here tonight to express my passionate opposition to the proposed up zoning, or so we call it spot zoning and the proposed development by Metropolitan Homes. Because unlike Mickey's Uplands project, this is like lacking in the visionary component. I've been active in the neighborhood meetings and was present for the initial six hour planning board meeting several months ago and never before have a witness such an organized and resounding opposition to a proposed project. My hope is that you will listen to the United Voices of the Crescent Neighborhoods and vote against the proposed rezoning of this property to begin with, the existing church structure on site while in need of some TLC is a historic gem designed by one of the most prominent and important modernist architects of the 1960s, Jean Sternberg, who actually taught architecture side by side with Frank Lloyd Wright. He was responsible for designing several notable buildings throughout Denver, including National Jewish Hospital, Arapahoe Community College, and from master planning several historic neighborhoods such as the mid-century modern Arapahoe Acres. The church that he designed on the site that is going to be demolished is a relic of old press more. It was built in 1962, the same year as my house. It's a landmark and a reflection of the history of the neighborhood in the park and should not be allowed to be demolished. To disregard our city's history and to allow our public municipal buildings to evaporate is shortsighted and a crime in the truest sense. To put it bluntly, Metropolitan Home proposal is offensive and there's nothing to gain from this project. For the residents of Cress, more new development should add value to a neighborhood instead and to the contrary, this requested change in zoning is 100% inconsistent with our neighborhood. Excuse me. If a developer. If a developer wants to develop high density living units, which is his right, let him do so in a neighborhood that already has adequate existing zoning designations in place. The proposed rezoning is so inappropriate that I was shocked the planning board voted in his favor. However, after their decision, someone on the board said that it isn't the board's job to preserve neighborhoods, nor is it their job to preserve history. The board's job is only to interpret and enforce the zoning code. While this may be true, it's unfortunate and it does not give them the liberty to consider the bigger picture here. That person on the board, on the planning board went on to encourage everyone in the audience to attend the city council hearing, because he said that is the forum at which history and neighborhoods can be preserved. For all the reasons mentioned before me and for some, I'm sure that you'll hear from others speaking out for me tonight . This proposed project would be devastating for my already stable and amazing neighborhood. And more importantly, this project and the developer's actions are shortsighted. For the bigger picture and the greater context of the growth of Denver as a thriving city, as not only a resident of Creston, we're failing, too, but a property owner of an original 1962 single family home located directly on the west side of Monaco Parkway. I can speak very specifically as to the desirability of single family home living on Monaca Parkway. We love it form more than any other home or neighborhood we've ever lived in. So much so that we consider this house our forever home. To say that building. One more. To say that building more single family homes on Monaco Parkway doesn't make sense because no one wants to live there is ignorant and arrogant. I can also speak to how the Parkway itself contributes in a positive way to my family's quality of life. Just one block north of the part of the proposed property. More Monaco Parkway. The parkway itself is listed on both the Colorado Street State Register of Historic Properties and the National Register of Historic Places and for good reason . It's a very important piece of the historic fabric of Denver. It's a beautiful, majestic procession strengthened by its mature trees and plantings, its historic homes, its consistency and its lack of projects like the One Metropolitan Homes is proposing. And it's where I live. We are all here tonight to focus on the potential rezoning issue. And while that should be the primary topic of concern, Metropolitan Homes has also posted a sign on the property requesting a right away vacation for the Monaco Parkway edge of this property. This effectively this effectively means that the developers are requesting that the city owned portion of the land along Monaco be vacated or donated to the project and added to the usable, buildable portion of land for the project's development. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, for constructing the public works right away. Services to momentarily put a hold on this vacation request, this vacation request and the actions.
Speaker 1: You know, we've had a little.
Speaker 6: Problem with a timer, but I think that you've used up your 6 minutes. Except that it doesn't, is it?
Speaker 5: No. He still time.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 4: I can wrap.
Speaker 1: It up yesterday. Sorry.
Speaker 4: This vacation request in the actions of metropolitan homes and their proposed development is evidence of a much bigger picture problem here. The approval of this vacation request would erode the edge of Crescent Report Park and Monaco Parkway. It would erode the historic structure on site. And truthfully, it would erode our ability to trust in the leadership, which was ultimately put in place to preserve all these critical elements of our city. Rather than allow these arteries, i.e., Monaco Parkway, to be chopped up right to the edge of a historic designation, we should be looking for ways to extend them and stretch them into the city, reinforcing the strength in the history of Denver as a world class city with history. This project, if approved, would cause irreparable damage to my neighborhood and I'll be the one paying the price for it as long as I choose to live where I do. Please do not support this rezoning. Please do not support metropolitan homes in their endeavor to make money despite the lasting negative consequences that would be paid at the expense of Chris Moore Park, Chris Moore neighborhood neighborhoods and its residents. Please do consider the sanctity of your citizens livability over the grand plans of one single developer. You have the chance to do a great thing here tonight. Please support your constituents by voting against this proposal and against this rezoning. It's wrong. And it's so clearly wrong for our neighborhood. Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Davis. Amy Hook.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate your attention. I'm Amy Hooke and I live at 245 South Locust Street in Denver. You can tell by my shirt that I oppose the zoning of 195 South Monaco to SM three. I live about one half block from the site of this proposed rezoning, and I'd like to make some other comments about the traffic, transportation and parking impact of this up zoning proposal. I think we all accept traffic and parking increases as a natural byproduct of smart, healthy growth in Denver. However, tonight we're.
Speaker 1: Considering a rezoning of a small.
Speaker 7: Parcel of land within the single family XMR neighborhood, an area of stability depicted in the poster. Rezoning is requested in order to accommodate a high density apartment complex. This is not smart growth. The traffic and parking consequences on the neighborhood streets of Chris Moore will be severe and potentially unmanageable. To explain these concerns to you, I'd like to go back to some basics of Blueprint Denver. Blueprint Denver is an integrated land use and transportation plan that, as you have already heard, has a primary commitment to preserving and enhancing areas of stability, such as a more neighborhood to blueprint. Denver This means never creating density for density sake, just to create more housing as being as is being proposed here, but rather matching desired density with appropriate surroundings. The density proposed here is actually equivalent to an urban density designation. And therefore, according to Blueprint, Denver should be paired not just with a parkway but with matching transportation, mixed use resources such as pedestrian or shopping corridors, light rail or commuter rail, HGV lanes, BRT, park and ride or mixed use destinations within.
Speaker 14: A convenient walking distance.
Speaker 7: Monaco Parkway does not have these resources, and otherwise this high density development is actually paired with small neighborhood streets such as Cedar Avenue and South Locust Street. Blueprint. Denver actually makes a specific commitment to minimizing traffic impact on neighborhood streets in areas of stability, such as the quest for neighborhood blueprint, Denver emphasizes managing pedestrian safety, traffic speed and traffic volume on residential streets such as Cedar and South Locust. Blueprint Denver specifically warns of traffic problems such as high speed cut through traffic and congested local intersections that will endanger residents and severely compromised neighborhood livability. There are already traffic problems in our neighborhood over the past two years. Denver's accelerated growth and therefore traffic impact has exceeded projections. In the XMR neighborhood, we already experienced the effects of increased traffic volumes such as crowded local intersections and high speed cut through neighborhood streets due to backups.
Speaker 1: On Monaco, Alameda and.
Speaker 7: Cedar. The congested intersection at Cedar in Monaco is the.
Speaker 1: One shown in the photos blueprint.
Speaker 7: Denver warns that these traffic symptoms already call for better traffic management, not for adding more traffic to already congested intersections and dangerous cut through traffic. There's also heavy use of more park for recreation, pedestrian traffic, as well as children and adult sports teams of numerous types, including soccer and baseball. On the weekends, the park area and surrounding streets are already a sea of cars, posing problems for parking and a hazard for children and families crossing the streets, such as the family involved in the tragic accident at the intersection of Alameda and Monaco. A high volume, very congested intersection.
Speaker 1: The proposed up zoning.
Speaker 7: And high density development will create additional negative impact on traffic patterns. At 195 South Monaco entry exit access options to the proposed development are limited and create predictable traffic impact problems.
Speaker 14: If access is confined.
Speaker 7: To Monaco, traffic engineering considerations suggest that the construction of auxiliary turnout lanes may be necessary to mitigate peak hour turning volume, and that northbound apartment residents will not be able to make hazardous left turns on to Monaco and therefore will need to U-turn on Monaco or cut through neighborhood streets such as Cedar and South Locust in order to proceed north. If access cannot be confined to Monaco.
Speaker 14: Access will be forced onto South.
Speaker 7: Locust and cedar, which have little or no capacity to absorb high density access traffic. It is also important to keep in mind that the traffic impact of the nearby Buckley Annex development will cumulatively.
Speaker 14: Cumulatively affect congestion on South.
Speaker 7: Monaco and on the crest more neighborhood streets. A 2012 traffic study of the impact of development at Buckley Annex projected a very poor, borderline unacceptable rating of the functioning of Alameda, Monaco intersection.
Speaker 1: Where the family was hit. Other than that.
Speaker 7: 2012 Buckley study, there are surprisingly no further traffic studies available describing the impact of this high density development on congestion at neighborhood intersections.
Speaker 1: Or how this impact could be managed.
Speaker 7: One such already congested intersection is Cedar in Monaco. Already shown to you in the photos. This intersection represents one of the few East-West alternatives connecting to Holly Street and already sees cut through traffic when there's congestion at Monaco and Alameda. Other currently hazardous intersections include Monaco and Bayard, or left turning on in Monaco currently causes frequent near accidents.
Speaker 14: Also, as has.
Speaker 7: Been pointed out, the.
Speaker 1: SMU three development currently.
Speaker 7: Proposed provides inadequate parking for residents and their guests, resulting in overflow parking onto our already crowded neighborhood streets. In conclusion, one If South Monaco should not be resolved zoned SMU three This deep.
Speaker 12: Up zoning to.
Speaker 7: Accommodate high density development is not supported by Blueprint Denver. It will cause a predictable worsening of current traffic problems, which will severely compromises safety and livability of the Chris Moore neighborhood. Thank you very.
Speaker 1: Much for listening.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mark Nasr. No. Okay. Let's move on. Our next group of speakers begins with David Schachter. Michelle Breslin's Jennifer Shearer LA's Bella Gratis Meg White La Brian Blakeley, Laura Pitman, Molly ECHLIN and Chris Crew. If you could all come to the front bench. Oh. See his David check tour here. He's gone. Okay. Thank you. Michele Breslin's. But, you know. But Michelle's whereabouts?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Okay. We'll keep moving on. Jennifer. Sure. Okay. Keep going. Lars Bella guarantees.
Speaker 4: No, it's okay. Yeah.
Speaker 3: He's Lewis here, but he. No Lewis's whereabouts. Okay. Meg White La. All right, come on up.
Speaker 7: My name is Margaret Whitelaw. I live at 6300 East Cedar Avenue and I live very close to the proposed building site.
Speaker 12: Whatever else is.
Speaker 7: Said this evening, in the end, the decision of this council must be made by the rule of law. Zoning is a legal concept. The Church. The council may approve a map amendment only if the council also finds that the application meets one of the listed justifying criteria as well as the four general three general criteria of equal importance.
Speaker 1: The applicant.
Speaker 7: The developer on all these points bears the burden of proof, quote, at a minimum by the preponderance of the evidence. Under all these criteria and the facts. This application for zoning must be denied.
Speaker 1: It should be plainly stated what the legal.
Speaker 7: Standard is not. The legal standard is not that the developer could have built a five storey house in our neighborhood, so we should be happy that he is now coming down to a three storey building and reducing the number of units. So he is compromised and the neighborhood should just accept it.
Speaker 1: That is not.
Speaker 7: A legal standard. It is a statement of entitlement and presumed inevitability that one particular landowner in our neighborhood believes he deserves. He purchased he owns a single family owned parcel in our neighborhood. However, in doing so, he did not purchase all the legal rights in the neighborhood. Each one of us has rights, and we purchased our homes with the expectation that the zoning we counted.
Speaker 1: On and the character of our quiet.
Speaker 7: Neighborhood would not be upended.
Speaker 1: What are the facts about.
Speaker 7: Our neighborhood in this parcel of land? The facts in the form of the map and descriptions presented by the city are simply wrong. As blueprint, Denver accurately states, quote, easily identifiable borders help distinguish each neighborhood, unquote. Nothing could be truer of the crest more and hilltop neighborhoods, these neighborhoods and.
Speaker 1: On the west side of Monaco.
Speaker 7: To produce a map as the city did, that bundles this single family zone church on the West with development on the other side of the street and with the zone district to the south that the city has very recently drawn and inserted is highly inaccurate. Why has the church been zone single family in the first place? Obviously it is because all the housing across Cedar and for blocks and blocks contiguous to the church on the West are also single family. The large apartment complex, the Lex has been on the east side of Monaco since the late 1960s. Having the legs there all these years did not change the zoning of the church on the West Side, and it doesn't change it now. The church is part and parcel of our community park, single family neighborhood. The applicant is correct, though. The Chris Moore and Hilltop neighborhoods are an area of stability. The map affixed to Blueprint Denver clearly bears that out. The current zoning is consistent with the applicable plans, and the proposed suburban zoning is not. Blueprint Denver concludes wisely that growth in density should be directed to areas of change. Areas of stability are further divided between committed areas and areas of reinvestment. The Christopher Park neighborhood is most definitely not an area of reinvestment.
Speaker 1: Moreover, the church site is not an.
Speaker 12: Area at.
Speaker 7: All. It is.
Speaker 1: One.
Speaker 7: Parcel within a vibrant, desired housing area. A dissenting member from the Planning Board agreed with us on this point. One parcel does not an area make, and this parcel could be fruit fruitfully developed under its current zoning. The justification for rezoning given by the city was that the parcel was in, quote, a better state of repair. Five years ago, the correct legal justification standard is as follows The land is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to.
Speaker 1: Encourage.
Speaker 7: Redevelopment of the area to recognize the changed character of the area. There is no law that permits rezoning on the basis of deferred maintenance. The truth is, the developer continued to rent this, quote, poorly maintained church to its congregation up until one week ago. The city did not forbid the church as a place of public gathering due to safety concerns. This site functioned despite the fact that it needed sprucing up. Finally, nothing could be further from the facts than calling our vibrant, healthy neighborhoods areas in need of reinvestment. We strongly challenge both the applicant and the city and their assertions in Exhibit G that in order to facilitate the integration of Lowry, it is important to address the aging, urban, urban residential areas such as the Chris Moore and Hilltop neighborhoods. Exhibit G goes on to say that Hilltop and Chris Moore residents face concern about, quote, deteriorated and poorly maintained housing stock. Under no circumstances should the council endorse or approve assertions such as these or allow anyone to bootstrap these.
Speaker 1: Statements to bolster further.
Speaker 7: Incursions or claims into our neighborhood. They are, quite simply.
Speaker 1: False. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 7: You do not approve this, Tony.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss White La. Our next person is Michelle Breslin's. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Michelle Burns. I live at 3229 Columbine. I'm personally in support of this rezoning. However, I am here tonight to share a statement from my friend Aileen Torres, who is a Lowry resident, and she is not able to make it this evening. She apologizes that she's not able to attend. But I do want to let you know of her support in this. These opinions are her own in and it's not in any professional capacity. And they're her personal opinions. She's a very strong supporter of the Lowry neighborhood, and she knows that, you know, a lot of these surrounding neighborhoods have been at the table with the Lowry planning process, as well as making. Excuse me, making their opinions and comments known for over 20 years in the same spirit as a surrounding neighborhood. She would like to offer her comments in support of this project. She knows you're familiar with the site and the huge eyesore that it is today. Like somebody just recently said, Mr. Stoddard had mentioned that the survey presented via the neighborhood based websites, did not provide an opportunity for support, let alone constructive comments regarding the potential pros of a buffer project along Monaco. The way the property sits today is an embarrassment for Chris Moore, for Lowry and for Denver and Schwartz. In the interest of time, she and I both appreciate your support and courageous consideration. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian Blakeley.
Speaker 13: That evening, madam president, members of the city council who is Brian Blakeley live at 510 Grape Street in the.
Speaker 4: Hilltop neighborhood not far from the project. We'll keep it brief since it's late and a lot of the comments that have made in earlier kind of summarize quickly.
Speaker 13: I'm hearing the opposition, I think there's going to be detractors no matter where you go.
Speaker 4: There's always going to be someone who's not happy. You've got a project.
Speaker 13: That has been thoughtfully created and fits with with with the.
Speaker 4: Neighborhood, I think in a in a good way.
Speaker 13: You know, proposed changes are always, always controversial. But in the end, I think that the neighborhood is.
Speaker 4: One is is missing affordable.
Speaker 13: Product.
Speaker 4: It's missing homes for some of the, you know, older neighbor or older residents. And it's in this location. Long Monaco.
Speaker 13: Seems an ideal place to to put that kind of a project.
Speaker 4: Project and most of the increased traffic seems to me would be easily going along Monaco and not, you know, into the neighborhood where I think, you know, even if you did manage to stop the project, you're not going to stop the project or the increased density. So I encourage you all to look at the big picture and support the project is something that is needed in the city and needed in that area. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is Laura Pitman.
Speaker 1: Hi. Thank you for saving the best for last. You know, I own the priest. I'm not the last. Oh, bummer. Okay. I own the preschool that's right across the street at 2 to 5 South Monaco Parkway. And we have 80 children enrolled and 80 sets of parents. In my issue is safety, and I think I hear a lot of talk about money and progress and things like that. But I'm not hearing a lot about the children that spend 3 to 12 hours a day on that corner and our community that spends time at the park. We had a scooter accident a couple of years ago right out in front of our property where somebody was killed because it's a terrible intersection at Cedar in Monaco. We also had a car that came through our fence and landed on our playground. Playground. We used to walk to the nursing home once a week on Fridays to visit the elderly, and we're not allowed to do that as much as we used to because of the traffic is so bad and we fear that our kids will be injured walking across the street. There was somebody that spoke earlier about they wanted their mom to live on the third floor to look over at the children. You know, that they we should trust her mother in the third floor of an apartment. And I don't trust anybody looking out of a window of an apartment building. It matters that a family was injured on the corner of Monaco and Alameda. It matters that a car flipped through our fence under our playground, and it matters that safety is an issue here. I respect the fact that this is about money and it's about progress. But is it worth for a child to be hurt or killed on that corner? Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our next speaker is Molly Eklund. Anybody know where Molly is? Okay. We'll move on. Our next speaker is Chris Crew. Okay. All right, let's keep going. Our next speaker is Joe Reese. Let's see if they're downstairs. Coming up after Mr. Reece is Marcus Faulkner. And Laura Pittman. I had you down twice. You've already. Okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Faulkner.
Speaker 4: Good morning, council members.
Speaker 8: My name is Marcus Faulkner. I offer 70 to 90 East First Avenue. I also live in Hilltop, so I go by.
Speaker 4: And near and through this site on a daily basis.
Speaker 8: I just want to say I'm one of the last supporter.
Speaker 13: Here this evening, so I'll probably talk a little bit in summary about the comments that have been made. First of all, I just want to very quickly clear up a few things.
Speaker 4: We think not that Chris Moore is an area that it.
Speaker 13: Is a very stable.
Speaker 4: Neighborhood. It is not all an.
Speaker 13: Area of reinvestment. We are talking about this site.
Speaker 4: This developer has been remarkably collaborative and working with this, and that's evidenced by.
Speaker 13: Three changes that have been presented to you.
Speaker 4: And lastly.
Speaker 13: After an 8 to 1 vote of planning board to support this for full plan support, the developer said, I have not gone far enough and voluntarily entered into a contract with nine units that share the zone lot to.
Speaker 4: Further restrict their.
Speaker 13: Zoning. It's not appropriate to do in the zoning code. They voluntarily entered into a contract to reduce that. All of you know better than anyone in here the pressures of development. Councilwoman Sussman made an incredibly astute observation. It feels like ten years of development in the last year and a half. The difficulty of all this emotion on both sides is, unfortunately, the fear of change. Combining this with Lowry.
Speaker 8: We have to strip that all away.
Speaker 13: And we have to talk about zoning. We have to talk actually.
Speaker 8: What's in front of you tonight. And I just want to encourage you to take one last walk around this site.
Speaker 4: Immediately.
Speaker 13: Across the street. Across the street. So out of Chris Moore is a proposed conceptual five story GDP that's been approved. There's Chris Moore down, that is seven stories and then a nursing facility.
Speaker 8: And then since we spent a lot of time talking about walking. Walk with me one last time on.
Speaker 4: Chris Moore side along Monica. You start with three abandoned lots. Single family does not work on Monica. It does not work anymore.
Speaker 13: It works north of here, not on this site. From there, you go to eight condos that have.
Speaker 4: Turned into each other. And don't face Monica because it doesn't work. Then you get to a daycare that is ironically zoned some, you three, the.
Speaker 13: Very zoned district that is being requested tonight.
Speaker 8: This zone district.
Speaker 4: Already exists in the neighborhood. It's right across the street. Then you get to this site and we have heard all of.
Speaker 8: These things, all of this description of what this site should be. Actually, I have to say, I think the.
Speaker 13: Chris Moore neighborhood in character.
Speaker 4: Has been described remarkably accurately.
Speaker 8: It is primarily.
Speaker 13: Single family homes that then make a remarkable transition to Monica, a street that's an arterial that has a lot of traffic that is.
Speaker 4: Hard to cross, all of those things. So here's a great.
Speaker 13: Solution for sale product that embraces the for sale product. It embraces the park. With this project, you will see eight new single.
Speaker 8: Family homes.
Speaker 4: On the park, eight on Cedar.
Speaker 13: To allow for a new pedestrian crossing. You will see.
Speaker 9: Seven.
Speaker 13: For sale pedestrian units that you will.
Speaker 8: Walk by and enjoy and embrace.
Speaker 4: The street. Only from Monica. On a site that engages only Monaco.
Speaker 13: Is the 50 unit.
Speaker 4: Apartment building. You will work.
Speaker 13: Hard to see this from the park. That's because it.
Speaker 4: Is what everyone's described.
Speaker 8: It's Monica Boulevard. It needs to embrace it. And I'm sorry, the last thing that I observed tonight, if it's not single family, what is this site? There's SMU three and there's SMU two and a half.
Speaker 13: What's the problem with SMU?
Speaker 8: Two and a half or urban edge? Two and a half.
Speaker 13: I'm sorry. Yes, yeah.
Speaker 8: I went to SMU. So I'm saying that too often the difference between two.
Speaker 4: And a half and three is for sale or rental. The same reason single family doesn't work. It's hard to add.
Speaker 3: To park New Year.
Speaker 13: Thank you very much. Please support this project.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 3: See, our next speaker is Gordon Palmer. Mary Valdes.
Speaker 5: Are you?
Speaker 3: Very. Come on up.
Speaker 1: Oh, she. She.
Speaker 3: What did she say? Okay. Pass. Thank you. Paul. David. Elizabeth Lund. Randy Nakagawa. I think we are you, Elisabeth.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: Let's see. Is Paul David in the mix?
Speaker 1: Okay. You're up, Paul. Yep.
Speaker 3: And Elizabeth will follow you and Randi will follow Elizabeth. And while you're getting started, will Carlyle call up Kevin? DHALIWAL.
Speaker 4: All right. So good. Good morning. Thank you. Madame President and city council members. A lot has been said here, and I've changed my comments about 25 times this evening just because I don't want to be repetitious. But there were a few things that were said here that I think needed addressing, and I'll try and get to all of them within 3 minutes. My first point, though, was actually, with all due respect, towards the city council. And then one thing that we are here is to impress upon city council the wishes of the neighborhood and the citizens. This is really our only chance. By asking us to not support fellow speakers, by not applauding. I thought it was a rather strange request because it's really our only chance to express how we feel about it. I go to the symphony and I applause and it's civil. I go to lectures and I applause and it's civil. I think we can applause our fellow citizens here, and it can be still civil. So that's just a side comment. And I hope that doesn't turn the city council against me. But I just had to get that off my chest. Now, the next thing is that we had a couple of comments here, and I would start by going back quite earlier this evening. There was. A presentation. I didn't get the name of the gentleman, but he was with the Planning Commission and one of the comments he made is that the XML park itself provides a barrier to the neighborhood. Well, I happen to live at 210 South Local Street. It's the second street away from the proposed development. Less, less than a few hundred feet away. So I'm ground zero, but on the south side, not on the north side, there's absolutely no barriers between my house and between the park. So that was one comment that I thought was rather strange, that there is a barrier created between the park and my home. The other comment that was made by the Planning Commissioner Gentleman, was that this kind of proposed apartment building will fit in with this type of structures that are on that street. And several people have noted that there is a building of seven stories of Chris Moore Downs, but it is not on Monocle. There is actually a row of townhomes or several rows of townhomes that separate that building. So it's not actually right on the street. So and also the comments were made that it's completely on the other side of the neighborhood. So I thought that was worth mentioning as well. Moving right along, I think that one of the things that people got to realize here and I'm going to speak on a free hand here is the t shirts are orange. They're not red. Nobody here has. Well, there's a few people who want to maintain things, the status quo. But a lot of people in this neighborhood are quite progressive and are really willing to work towards a solution. And these shirts do not say, and I just got mine tonight. But they do not say.
Speaker 3: Mr. David, your time is lapsed. Oh, sorry. You had 3 minutes. All right. Thank you. All right, Elizabeth.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel. My name is Elisabeth Lund. Please bear in mind that I am not personally at fault for.
Speaker 7: Speaking to you at 1230.
Speaker 1: You do have 6 minutes. I do have 6 minutes. I won't take it. But I live at Lowry. I live at 203 South Pontiac Street. I am very distressed about Boulevard one, but that's a different issue. I belong to the Crest Moore Community Association, so I use the park and the tennis and swim club a lot, and I'm very concerned about the traffic. But tonight I am here on behalf of Lund. Lund stands for Lowry United Neighborhoods. So it's kind of an umbrella registered neighborhood association. And on January 30 of this year, Lund voted at its annual.
Speaker 7: Meeting to.
Speaker 1: Submit a formal opposition to this rezoning application to the planning board, and then did so on January 21st of this year before the planning board.
Speaker 7: So the Lowry United.
Speaker 1: Neighborhoods are stand with Chris Moore. The City Council can act to protect crests, more residences and all.
Speaker 7: These wonderful people here tonight.
Speaker 1: With proper zoning, it is unreasonable to expect Kress more residents to have to go to court to enforce covenants. If covenants, which are restrictive in nature, are placed in deeds, and there's $25,000 in escrow.
Speaker 7: For that purpose.
Speaker 1: Why go that way? Why make citizens have to go to court to enforce their rights?
Speaker 7: Why can't this city council make the right zoning decision now so that nobody has to go to court?
Speaker 1: And the people here from Chris Moore are wonderful people.
Speaker 7: The last thing they want to do.
Speaker 1: Is be here at 1230 in the morning before a city council who they think will just blow them out of the water.
Speaker 7: They don't want to be here, but they feel.
Speaker 1: They need to be here because their voices are not being listened to. This developer with this present rezoning application is seeking to capitalize on what Chris Moore residents have built. Chris Moore Residents have lived in Chris Moore for decades and they have paid property taxes for decades and they have supported this city for decades and they have
Speaker 7: . For decades made Chris Moore the very special place that it is.
Speaker 1: And they are very nice people and they are here to protect their property. Please do not approve this rezoning application. Just say no. Look at.
Speaker 7: The Legos. And for the record, this city council is placed on notice that it does know of the already dangerous.
Speaker 1: Streets which surround this proposed rezoning application.
Speaker 7: And also finally, I would ask that you please consider rescheduling.
Speaker 1: The Boulevard One rezoning application, which is currently scheduled for the last.
Speaker 7: Monday of this month, because otherwise we will all be here past midnight again. If you could please reschedule that, it would be appreciated. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Lind. Our next speaker is Randy Naka. Nakagawa. Nakagawa? Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Madam President. Council members. My name is Randy Nakagawa. I reside at 240 South Locust, about a half a block from the property under discussion. Living in Chris Moore for 24 years, but in Denver for almost 55 years, you've heard and may hear some more. Many rational and appropriate reasons why the proposal on change to an SMU three should not be approved. So what's a couple more at this time? I'll, first of all, address a small area of plans. Those of you were on the Neighborhood Neighborhoods Committee heard Councilwoman Sussman address this. As you know, small area planning is another key concept of Blueprint Denver and Plan 2000 outlines which neighborhoods should get small area plans first when we increase more asked about get in our own small area plan, we were told that we were not eligible. Councilwoman Sussman asked planning officials about this and was told We are not eligible because there's no evidence of blight, poverty. No plans for a transit station and no significant infill in our neighborhood. We don't have these change characteristics because Chris Moore has been a stable neighborhood for many decades. Planning officials later told Councilwoman Sussman that Chris Moore might someday be eligible for a small area plan, but that would be at the bottom of the list because we just don't meet the criteria. So simply the Chris Moore neighborhood does not meet the criteria for a small area plan. Then we are without a doubt established as a stable neighborhood where steeply up zoning, a small parcel of the neighborhood of single family homes to an SMU three. That only does not make sense, but it violates the basic objectives of small area planning and plan. 2000 and Blueprint Denver. You've heard a number of very good arguments in opposition to the proposed only change, and so I don't have any more arguments, but as opposed to I'll quantify some of those for you briefly, the crystal ball park neighborhood, as you know now is comprised of three neighborhood associations consisting of 786 homes. And in all our surveys, of the 786 homes in the entire Chris Moore area, 648 or 82% are opposed to the zoning change. Not to development, but to the zoning change of the 200 homes in the neighborhood organization that includes a church property, 184 or 92% are opposed to the zoning change of the residents of Chris Moore within 200 feet of the property. 22 signed a city petition to reject the rezoning of the property and that includes six of the nine owners of the townhomes that are joining the property. Not all of those town home owners signed a deed or an agreement with the developer, by the way. So that was erroneous before. One of the persons, I suppose, or groups did not sign happens to own the Lex outside investment group across across Monica Parkway. And by the way, Monaco Parkway, the LEX there are townhomes on Monaco. The apartment buildings are set back at least 90 yards and more to the interior of the Lex complex. So that needs to be corrected. Also, you heard about the largest neighborhood association, Chris Moore filings to and their vote, 73 households, two one in opposition. And in our separate online survey using SurveyMonkey, we yielded 1179 responses from not only Chris Moore but from Hilltop Lowry and former Chris Moore residents living as far away as Stapleton, downtown Denver and West Aurora. And in response to the question, Do you support the rezoning of the 195 South Monica property? 94% or 1008 respondents answered no and to correct a previous allegation that there was no way to make comments. If you voted yes.
Speaker 8: You actually could.
Speaker 4: Leave comments because I had to compile those comments sifting through a thousand 1107 nine excuse me surveys. So even with this level of opposition from Chris Moore, Park residents, the metropolitan Toms owner and paid representatives, they continue to press on. They continue to defy Chris Moore residents who are hardworking folks in all areas of commerce and. Fashion's summer single summer families with children range from infants to college age. Some are empty nesters and others are elderly. We are not gated community NIMBYs because if we were.
Speaker 8: We'd all be at home in bed by now.
Speaker 4: Actually, we'd be at home. We wouldn't have to worry about density, we'd have to about traffic, would have to worry about public safety. But because we're just public roads running through our neighborhoods, there are concerns. So we want the 195 South Monaco site developed, just not how Metropolitan Homes proposes to develop it. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison says. Government has been instituted because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint. In our situation, the desires of one man should not be able to negatively impact the lives of more than 700 families who are Cress Moore Park residents. So we appeal to you or council members to stop the proposed zoning change so we can actually work for appropriate development design from current neighborhood density out, not from a number of units pulled from the sky and put down upon us. We would like to see responsible development that starts with the neighborhood and complements it, not development that is imposed on it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Our final speaker is Kevin Galois. He left. Okay.
Speaker 1: He left.
Speaker 3: My goodness. Okay. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Madam President. I have several. One. The first one is for CPD staff.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 11: Now he. He's here. Just.
Speaker 4: At least. No. No. Good morning.
Speaker 13: David Gaspar, CPD.
Speaker 11: Thank you. There was a reference to signatures for a protest. Why did. Why did the signatures not meet the legal protest requirements?
Speaker 13: The signatures was not the issue. It was the total amount of the square footage that was required to meet the protest petition was not met. So there was, I believe, if I remember right, at pricing 95,000 square feet required and the protest petition reached 82,000.
Speaker 11: Thank you. And for the developer, a couple of questions. Concerning the other proposals that have been given to you by the neighborhood, whether it's been in Lego form or other kinds of redevelopment, what is your response to whether those are workable plans?
Speaker 13: Thank you for the question. It's a great question. We got to spend a little bit of time with a few of the members of the community evaluating those plans. And there were a couple of the concepts, in particular the one that received the highest votes for or the most favorable from the neighborhood. And there were certain issues with that plan that conflicted with the current zoning code. For instance, the single family homes that were along Monica had their garages fronting Monica and the buildings need to actually front Monica. Then those fronts of those single family homes were actually facing the ADU units that they reference and the other five single family homes fronting Locust. So there were several issues with that. In addition to that, some of the other plans that they had proposed had access points off of cedar where access points off of locust. And that was one of the concerns from the neighborhood that we worked very hard to address. So I hope that answers some of your questions.
Speaker 11: Could you also just describe for me a bit more what you mean by age targeted? I mean, I'm thinking that I should have a right to be curious. So I want to know what benefit would it have for a person like me?
Speaker 13: Yes, absolutely. So. Age targeted is not assisted living. It is what we call active adult living. And we're coming to find is that people are starting to live differently than they used to. People like to move on from the responsibilities of ownership and deal in a low maintenance environment. They want to surround themselves with people of a similar demographic, similar interests. And so we design a product that we think attracts that particular demographic, and it's something that we've had a lot of success with at our previous developments. Currently at the Bellagio, we see people who are attracted based on the amenity package that we offered. So, you know, this may draw some criticism, but, you know, we don't offer a pool, we don't have the rooftop decks, we don't have certain amenities that would attract more younger, professional type of a demographic. It's something that is specifically designed with that age targeted demographic in mind.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Good.
Speaker 3: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I have a couple of questions as well. Let me start with. What's the status of the property right now? Is the church an operating church? Is the building completely vacant? Help me understand what the status is of the use of the building right now.
Speaker 13: Sure. Absolutely. So we closed on the site. We executed a short term lease with the existing congregation so that they could remain in the site and allow them enough time to find another location to relocate their congregation to. As of June 1st, they vacated the property. So as of last week, they have vacated they have found a new location temporarily, while they still seek to find a more permanent location. So the property is currently vacant. It is not being used.
Speaker 7: Okay. Part of the reason I asked is because someone had referred to. It's something about 18 years in in looking at different uses for this site. And so that that sort of threw me off. I wasn't clear about whether or not that property was occupied. I'd like to ask someone from the neighborhood that represents one of the associations. How long ago the last proposal was that you all saw on this particular property? Not by this particular developer. Someone made reference to that as well. And I just wanted to just get an understanding of how long ago that was.
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure I heard you right. You wanted to know about the previous developer's proposal?
Speaker 7: I want to know, when was the last proposal on this property? How long ago was that?
Speaker 1: About eight years ago. It was 2007 that Albert Ising was the group and it's actually the same architect. So they know well about what that was and it ended up being a 56 unit condo proposal and they withdrew before it ever came to council. And then after that, we, the Mount Juliet Church has been thriving there for many, many years. If we wanted to keep them there, our neighborhoods actually worked with them to try to help them get financing. We were hoping they could maybe build a newer building on the other side and do townhomes, financing it through townhomes.
Speaker 7: Okay. That answered my question. Thank you. And Mr. Tessler had talked about traffic. And I'm just curious, has a traffic study been done based specifically on the proposal that's on the table right now? And and what is that traffic study basically say?
Speaker 13: Yeah. So a traffic study has been completed on our proposal and ultimately what they have derived is the total trip counts generated per day is 329. And to break that down further so that I could at least understand it better, they told us what the trip generations would be during the peak hour in the PM peak hour and during the AM peak hour. That's one car every 2 minutes and 43 seconds entering or exiting our site and during the PM peak hour, that's one car entering or exiting our site every 2 minutes and 13 seconds. And to give that a little bit more perspective, there is currently approximately 30,000 trip counts on Monaco per day. So we are accounting for slightly over 1% of the total traffic generated on Monaco.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. I'd like to ask David Foster to come forward. I want to address the agreement and specifically the covenant on the land. And I want to refer to page two, Section four, regarding the provision that basically says if. The city does not approve. So, first of all, let me ask, has this been signed by anybody from the neighborhood? Yes.
Speaker 4: Well, I think.
Speaker 7: You from there are a couple of pages that are blank. Yes, I did see signatures, but I don't know who those people are. Yes. So I needed that clarification. So in in this section, it says if the city does not approve the zoning or if the development. If it's if the property is abandoned. Help me understand what abandoned means in this particular case.
Speaker 8: So to begin, this is only a.
Speaker 13: Covenant that runs with the land, because the.
Speaker 4: First sentence there is really important that was skipped over by the woman who spoke earlier.
Speaker 13: So this agreement and these restrictions.
Speaker 4: Shall only be.
Speaker 13: Binding if and when.
Speaker 4: The rezoning of the property to Smith three zone district is approved by the city. So if it doesn't happen.
Speaker 13: Then this is no out.
Speaker 4: That second sentence is really as it.
Speaker 8: Relates to the fact that people have already signed this agreement in anticipation.
Speaker 13: Of a.
Speaker 8: Potential rezoning. And if it doesn't take place and at that point we.
Speaker 4: Would abandon the.
Speaker 13: Rezoning process because we would have been denied. We just.
Speaker 4: Wanted to put everybody on notice who was signing this, that we're not living.
Speaker 8: By these by this land.
Speaker 13: Use covenant because the property.
Speaker 4: Was not zoned.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. At this time, I will yield to my colleagues. I may have some additional questions, but that's it for right now.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman. Commish.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. My first question was for the developer. Miss McCrimmon mentioned that the there were only 58 underground parking spots for 50 apartment units. I have a very different number in one of the documents associated with the project, so I wanted to understand whether that was an accurate statement.
Speaker 13: Yes. Thank you for asking that. That is not accurate. So as I had described earlier and if you'll reference in your site plan, we have a total of 152 parking spaces for the entire site. For the townhomes, there are two attached garages for every townhome, for the apartment building or the age targeted building, it is 58 underground parking spaces. That was correct. However, she neglected to mention the additional 44 surface parking spaces that serve the site.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 10: And is there anywhere where the parking itself is since these are above the code minimums, is there anywhere that this is documented, the parking commitment or it's just kind of is where does this commitment lie?
Speaker 13: The commitment was not documented in our land use covenant, but this is something that we are committed to building, just as we have committed to everything else that is in the land use covenant.
Speaker 10: Okay. Got it. Thanks. My next question was regarding the commitment to limit access to Monaco. I looked in the staff report and this one might be for planning staff report. Has the zoning going to all the departments? And I did look and see and it says fire. No comment. But the covenants restricting the access. I don't know that fire saw that because that's not in the zoning. So I guess I wanted to ask planning whether or not fire has specifically seen the access limitations and indicated that it would be okay. I don't know if there's any other code requirements such as public works, that might also need to weigh in on that. But I just want to make sure I want to understand whether that self-imposed limitation would would fly with the city.
Speaker 13: Sure. Well, there's always the distinction between planning services, review for zoning and development services on site plan. So from the planning services standpoint and the review of those other agencies towards this MAP amendment, that requires no comment because it wasn't tied to a specific development. I believe the applicant has gone through some site plan review and may have received comments there, but I'm not privy to that.
Speaker 4: Information.
Speaker 10: With the applicant. Like to speak to that and.
Speaker 13: Yeah. Thank you. So we have had I honestly lost count four or five pre-summit meetings with development services and all the referral agencies. And they have seen the site plan and they have approved of what we have here. So fire has reviewed this. Joe floors with fire and they have approved of this. Okay.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you for your forbearance, Madam President. I think I have one more question, depending on how that one goes, but planning again. There's been a lot of commentary about the context for this site being limited to the crest, more a statistical neighborhood. And so I guess I wanted to ask in in our.
Speaker 1: Law or rules.
Speaker 10: Is there anything that limits the context to the statistical neighborhood versus, for example, some portions of the statistical neighborhood are four or five times further away than areas in the neighboring statistical neighborhood that just happened to be across the street. So is there anything in the rules that limits the context to the statistical neighborhood, or is there has there been a practice? I feel like in other zoning, what we see is the vicinity. And so I just wanted to clarify whether.
Speaker 12: Where we were.
Speaker 10: At with that.
Speaker 13: To my knowledge, we are not limited to looking at statistical neighborhoods, but the vicinity of the area within the context of what is the appropriate neighborhood context to choose.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. I'll go ahead and yield. Madam President. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I will try to get all my questions in. And is John Sandwich, is he still there? Okay, great. Sabbath sandwich. Sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah. I'm just going to call you John. I'm sorry for butchering your last name. You you talked a lot about stability in the neighborhood, which which was really good. And I just wanted to ask you a question around. And also, you talked about the covenants, neighborhood covenants. You know, one of the things we've noticed in the press, more neighborhoods is a lot of scrapes. And I'm just wondering, how does the neighborhood deal with the scrapes and are there covenants? Because we don't have any zoning requirements around that. Are there are there covenants against certain scrapes?
Speaker 4: The covenants. The covenants require approval of a budget by our Architecture Review Committee, and then there's an appellate process to the full board, and there are design guidelines that were adopted by the neighborhood a number of years ago. So when a if somebody wants to scrape, they have to come in with the plans. And the kinds of things we look at are the preservation of the front setback, the 30 foot front setback. We don't have fences as Hilltop does. There's no nothing in front of the houses. The we look at the side setbacks. We look at the material used. Those kinds of things. I don't know if that answers your question because I'm pretty tired.
Speaker 9: But none of that does answer my question. Has there not been any kind of community back? You know, in some of our communities around Denver, scrapes are a big issue. And so just wanted to know, does your guidelines set it such? So there is not that much of a community backlash.
Speaker 4: There's not a community backlash against the scrapes. It depends. But the the how do I put it? The the important thing to the community is that the proposed building where that scrape has occurred fall within or be designed within the guidelines of the covenants.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you, Chris Davis. So, yeah. Hey, Chris, you talked a lot about, you know, this kind of apartment building being an issue on Monica. And just help me understand this. There are, I believe, nine condos on locus. The townhomes. Oh, townhomes. I'm sorry. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 9: On Locust. And then the Lux Apartments. You know, as as as we're starting to look at this site plan. I know there was you talked about, you know, the this development being near the park. You talked about, you know, a number you know, a number of developments being right there on on. Monica, I just wanted to hear you talk a little bit about there's already some of that development there and how this particular development you think would adversely impact what's already there.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that the context Monaco Parkway primarily is a historic parkway, and it's primarily single family residential. I think there is a distinction between the east side of Monaco Parkway and the west side of Monaco Parkway, and there isn't a development of this scale on the west side of Monaco Parkway. It's literally attached to Crest Moorpark, which is a big component of, you know, its location as well.
Speaker 9: And the blue was called the Luxe Apartments. How how many how many units do they have there?
Speaker 4: You know, I couldn't answer that. Okay. Does it? I don't know.
Speaker 9: 725. Okay, great. Thank you. Sure.
Speaker 4: I appreciate it.
Speaker 9: Just a quick question for gas first. You know, the the neighbors are bringing up something that is relevant. And I feel like we have the conversation every single time in on a review and it's it's traffic. But given our scope tonight, we're looking at zoning. And have there been conversations with zoning to tie kind of traffic studies to approve zoning? And I know that we have a very strict guideline. But have you all had that macro conversation? I mean, the.
Speaker 13: Conversation with transportation and land use is a very important one. And I mean, blueprint Denver is the document that helps guide us there. And that that document does focus on the not just the designation material or a a local street, but the character. So that's where the mixed use for Main Street or residential designations. But that's as far as it goes from a guidance from our adopted plans. And it's important to note that when you're looking at zoning, it's it's the zone district that you're adopting, not the project. So that trail is always tackled at the site plan review level where they are evaluating and having things like traffic studies done.
Speaker 4: But but in.
Speaker 9: In our review, you talk about the public safety and welfare of a community. And so. Does that include any of kind of traffic impacts and things like that? I mean, we talk about this all the time.
Speaker 13: Well, I mean, obviously, I think furthering public health, health, safety, welfare is a criteria that we evaluate and the opportunity for redevelopment. The site does give some to have better sidewalks, etc.. But from a traffic standpoint, again, if it's we're not approving a specific development, it's very hard to nail down what those impacts are, just zoning.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. And just last question for the developer. I don't know if you want to. Can you just kind of say for the record what the original plan was and what you all decided, what the current plan is for the development?
Speaker 13: Sure. So we we originally started with a SMU five zone district with over waiver four stories, and that was a 120 unit building in the shape of an L. It preserved a lot of the open space connectivity to the park. We then changed our application to an SMU three, but we kept the density at 120 units. We added a wing to the building, then we further and where we are today is 75 units. It's 25 for sale townhomes along cedar and locust and 50 age targeted rentals fronting Monica.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And if. Can you equate what that concession would be in dollars.
Speaker 13: I'll try. So when you look at a land. Development and you're trying to assess a monetary value, you typically will do it based on a per unit basis. And so when you look at comps, what Untitled Zoned Land sells for for multifamily, it's typically 35 to $40000 a door. So if you were to take that number, $40,000 a door and multiply that by 120 units, if anybody has a calculator, I, I think 4.8 million pretty close. Is that number. Okay. So if you were to look at it then in just a gross number and reducing the value or reducing the number of units from 120 to 75, if you take 75 units times that same, $40,000 per door, that number is. Three $3 million. So so that's a $1.8 million difference. And and there there are many other factors that go into play. If you're just looking at on an A gross number, that's one way. But with horizontal development, obviously, if you're spreading those same costs, the demolition of the building, the environmental abatement, those spread across a fewer number of units obviously impacts that significantly as well. So is that.
Speaker 9: A that's enough? Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate it. I'm done. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 12: Madam President, pro tem. Just a couple questions I thought I heard in some.
Speaker 14: Of the later testimony.
Speaker 12: Tonight. We've gone back and forth with whether we should have covenants to cut the number of units down or whether we should just rely on straight zoning. I'm fairly confident that covenants are effective, but I heard that this project, I think this is what I heard, that this project could be built under a townhome 2.5 and I checked the zoning code. That's, that's an option under both suburban and and edge urban edge zoning. Could this project with the multifamily building be built under either of those zoning? Maybe. Who wants to answer? I'm seeing people nod.
Speaker 13: You know, obviously, the the number there, it indicates the height. So with the SMU three, that allows that three storey apartment building to be built. So the 2.5 would be a it's actually two stories with some. I'd have to look at the exact details, but allow some three story elements to occur.
Speaker 12: But you couldn't really even do a multifamily building under a row home or townhome. So. Okay. Then my other question was, I want to understand why there's a need to vacate right away along Monica. I think that's a question for the developer. I heard we were going to have an eight foot sidewalk.
Speaker 13: Yes, ma'am. So when we were working with development services and planning stuff on our initial proposal, it was brought to our attention that the right of way along along this section of our property actually extends further into our property than it does anywhere else along Monaco to the north or to the south. And in our research, what we were able to conclude was that the right away had been vacated after Monaco had been expanded on the north, to the north of our site and to the south of our site. And for whatever reason, the right of way just wasn't vacated along our portion of the site. So what we were actually requesting was to align the right of way with the same line of right of way along the adjacent parcels of both to the north and the south of Monaco. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 12: Yeah, it does. I think there may be a lot of reasons for trying to figure out why the right away hadn't been vacated in just that section. So we we heard it and I was checking that on my iPad that Monaco is not a historic parkway this far south, but is there still a parkway set back in this section of parkway? And what is that parkway set back?
Speaker 13: Yes, ma'am. So the parkway setback that we have proposed runs between 44 and 48 feet. And so the parkway set back by code is only 25 feet. So we are actually going beyond that.
Speaker 12: Okay. I think I understand where you're going to put a bigger set back in than required by code.
Speaker 13: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 12: Okay. And how does a right away vacation affect that? Does that give you more feet for that set back?
Speaker 13: It does a similar feat for the step back. Yes, we we are honoring the 25 foot setback for the distance between the parkway and the beginning of our surface parking fronting Monaco. So the surface parking fronting Monaco there as we propose it here is not within the parkway setback.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Kill some of it.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. The in in following all the.
Speaker 8: The arguments made tonight. Some were more persuasive than others, but I followed them all. The only argument that I couldn't follow, and I kind of want to follow up and see if I can understand it.
Speaker 4: Mr. Singer made this argument. I think Mr. Singer is still here.
Speaker 8: There you are. And Ms.. White also made this argument. I don't know if she's still here.
Speaker 4: So you both referred to the.
Speaker 8: Orthodox Jewish community that's here and that on the Sabbath, they obviously can't drive to temple. They have to walk to the temple.
Speaker 4: And and they're.
Speaker 8: Walking to temple through this neighborhood that by covenant has no sidewalks. And that was a source of anxiety. But looking at the diagrams of the project. This project appears to be the only thing that will have sidewalks. In the neighborhood, you will actually be a sidewalk for the first time from Monaco heading towards the west and along Monaco. So how is this project making that situation worse?
Speaker 4: I think the issue wasn't following. I think the issue was one which apparently is not available for consideration by the council, which is the issue of traffic and the increased amount of traffic that will occur in the neighborhood and people coming down cedar. And then also using the side streets. It wasn't necessarily that this particular development would have an extra piece of sidewalk on Monaco. We were talking about more the entire area surrounding the development itself, not just some new sidewalk that might be built where the church currently exists or on the on the Monaco side. But it was more of the increase in density of people contributing to the number of cars impacting our neighborhood. Listening to the comments of the council tonight, of course, that's not something that factors into the zoning. It was just something that we were more concerned about from a health and safety consideration. Got it. So. So the change in the built.
Speaker 8: Environment would have to be viewed as a positive because there's going to be a sidewalk there where there isn't one now. But the increase in the number of human.
Speaker 4: Beings living there and the.
Speaker 8: Associated traffic, that's what you were referring to.
Speaker 4: Not not the not the.
Speaker 8: The project itself, the people who are living there. That's the problem.
Speaker 7: First of all, I think there's confusion. We do have sidewalks. It's failing to that does not have sidewalks. So there there are sidewalks.
Speaker 1: All.
Speaker 7: The way from, uh, Monaco to Holly.
Speaker 8: That was I was looking at the pictures y'all were showing and they showed miserable, attached sidewalks of, like, you know, three feet wide or something. It looked pretty pathetic to me, but yes.
Speaker 7: Except for, you know, the were the proposed sidewalks. There's already it's the sidewalk there. I mean, I don't think that that's.
Speaker 8: He's having to slip through his large file.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Like and then there's a beautiful sidewalk. They put that curved in it and you walk through the park. So there is a sidewalk.
Speaker 4: Behind.
Speaker 8: That picture.
Speaker 4: I see. May I clarify? Sure.
Speaker 1: Of. Sorry. This is our now on. Let's see.
Speaker 4: That's not the picture of the folks walking into this picture.
Speaker 1: The city recently. Probably within the last ten years. Added a very wide sidewalk on the south side of Christmas Park in order to accommodate the safety of the Jewish community.
Speaker 4: There you go. That's it right there.
Speaker 1: So there's a great sidewalk on that south side and then excuse me on. Yeah, that's outside of the park. On the other side of the street is a more traditional small sidewalk. Our R.A. has sidewalks across more filings, too, which is just to the north. Does not. So that's the confusion.
Speaker 8: Got it. Got it. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilman Brown.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you, Madam President, who's on the rendering committee over there. Would you hold this one up, please, that you showed about three days ago? Feels like with the traffic. I mean, on on Monica, with the town, with the apartments in the background. And I would like to know, could you come to the microphone to ask about this? No, it was one it was one bites that dominated the whole.
Speaker 1: Board, the.
Speaker 6: Colorado.
Speaker 12: Boulevard.
Speaker 1: The Colorado the.
Speaker 12: Sunrise.
Speaker 4: Oh, it was it was no, it was a rendering for what you said, how close the development would be to Monica. And you asked would anybody like that and it showed cars.
Speaker 6: Yes. That's that's a it's a project on.
Speaker 14: That's it right.
Speaker 4: There. No, no. In your right.
Speaker 1: Hand.
Speaker 14: No, you just let go of it.
Speaker 1: The one that's on Colorado Boulevard.
Speaker 6: It's a project on Colorado Boulevard.
Speaker 4: There you go. Oh, so that's Colorado. That's not the. Okay. Example. Okay. Yeah, I know that project. Okay, I get it. Is hanging around my. Is Rick Stoddard still here? They haven't. Okay. Michael, let me ask you the question that I don't that I don't want to ask, but I will. What happens if this fails tonight? And what are the plans?
Speaker 13: We honestly hadn't considered that. And that's just because we are focusing all of our efforts on working with the neighborhood on a proposal that we think is the best, highest and best use for this site. So ultimately, you know, our answer would be we would have to go back as a team and and reevaluate, start the process over. Sit down with city and planning, city and county of Denver's planning staff. Go through the process again as to what zoning they would recommend for the site, continue the neighborhood outreach, and ultimately go from there.
Speaker 4: You cannot bring this back again, as is for another year.
Speaker 13: Correct? No.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Brown, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I wanted to ask a completely different question. And, Mr. Gaspar, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone, help me understand when it is.
Speaker 1: That.
Speaker 7: CPD requires a site plan and a traffic study and that level of detail. I sat on a council that used to see that level of detail on primarily most zoning applications. This one is a little different from all of those that we've been seeing since I've been back on the council. Many of them require a general development plan. So help me understand when CPD is requiring a site plan with some of the details that we're seeing here tonight versus, you know, when we're seeing a general development plan, is it based on the size of the site? Is it help?
Speaker 13: Sure. This is those have a review processes would occur in the site plan review, which is as a project manager or project coordinator in development services who coordinates a an internal staff meeting with the applicant present to review all of those issues. So that would be fire right of way access, stormwater, etc. So they'd be going through that process. On the development services side of CPD.
Speaker 7: What is said generally before or after the application.
Speaker 13: But an applicant can, you know, start that process at their own risk that if the zoning that they're seeking for their development does not, you know, come come forward, that they would be at a loss for for all work put into that.
Speaker 7: And I guess part of the reason why I'm raising this point is because I think oftentimes neighborhoods are expecting us to look at that level of detail. And and I appreciate what has been shared with us here tonight in terms of the level of information that we've received on the property, on the project. But many other neighborhoods don't get a chance to see this level of detail, and that gets worked out through planning office staff with the developer. And I don't know how much input once the zoning happens that neighborhoods actually get to have in that part of the process after the zoning has been done. So can you clarify that point?
Speaker 13: Yeah, that's an internal, you know, site plan review process that is administratively, you know, conducted. So it wouldn't have that public review process for those type of things. And there are certain instances a general development plan does have a public meeting. So if it would constitute that larger scale plan process, you would have public meetings, but typically on a site by site basis that is administratively approved.
Speaker 7: And generally, how large does a site have to be to have a GDP versus just.
Speaker 13: There's no set size for GDP. It's a case by case basis.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. I just needed that clarification because we were not seeing the kind of detail in other applications that have come before this body since I've been on the council. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Any other questions from members of council? The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Sussman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: She comes.
Speaker 6: Well, I guess I'll get started anyway. Thank you all for being here and for being here for so long.
Speaker 1: I just read that.
Speaker 6: And maybe it's not just because it's my district, but you also kept my interest for the last time. Both sides of it. To my fellow council people, this isn't a big project. It's not going to mean much to the overall picture for Denver.
Speaker 1: It's only a few acres.
Speaker 6: It's not an affordable project. It doesn't have some of that issues that we have for a bigger project. But you can see what it means to. My constituents in my neighborhood is what this little acreage here on the end of this park means, even though it's not very.
Speaker 1: Big and it doesn't mean.
Speaker 6: A whole lot to the city. I'm going to come back to this, but I think you heard that it also points and I and Councilman Brooks brought this out. It also points to the though the worry and the primary concern people have about traffic. I had the opportunity to speak to one my very thoughtful constituents. I said, Would you be opposed to this if it only meant more people and it didn't mean more cars? And this constituent said, Gosh, I never thought about that. What if it were just more people but who didn't have cars? And of course.
Speaker 1: That's.
Speaker 6: Not the reality of the situation, but it is what the what the issue is. And I think it helps perhaps my counsel people understand. What has happened in District five. Most of the development that has occurred in the.
Speaker 1: Last 20 years to.
Speaker 6: 515, let's say ten or 15 years have happened at Lowry and Stapleton and out by the airport. All of it in the Northeast. And so the amount of traffic that has come down, Quebec and of course, Quebec never even went through when the pace was there. And the amount of traffic that's come down Colorado Boulevard and the amount of traffic that has come down Monaco has been enormous.
Speaker 1: And you wonder, like, where did all.
Speaker 6: These people come from? And it's true. I did say that, you know, we've had a long time that we haven't had development since Stapleton and Lowry, but suddenly we've had Cherry Creek and suddenly Ninth and Colorado Boulevard is coming on and suddenly Berkeley Annex is coming on. And so it feels. And then Cherry Creek, I said, Cherry Creek. It feels like something that we thought might be five or ten years away have happened in about a year and a half. So I think what you're hearing about this is that. We don't we don't want this to happen right here because of the way we feel about our neighborhood, our concern about traffic. But it's more than that. You can look at a piece of paper and you can see, oh, well, we're going to build or, you know, Buckley Annex is perhaps coming online. And and it's got it's an area of change. And you've got you've got the apartment house, the Lex partner's house across the street, and you've got the daycare center here. And if you look at it out a piece of paper, it looks like, oh, looks like you could have an s-max or a three storey building here. But if you go out there to cross more, you'll see that the feeling of Christmas goes all the way to Monaco. And Monaco is a big moat. It's what I usually call it with very fast alligators. And the the thing that is on the other side of Monaco, the cross, more people don't feel like it is they are neighborhood. And I know people can point to the fact that we have big high rise projects on parks like the pinnacle at City Park or the ones that we have at Wash Park. But all of those are across the street in the in this particular project. It will look like that project is in the park. It will not look like it is across the street in the way in which the other places do so. So it is a feeling about one's neighborhood and how one feels about it and what the context is. But but you have to kind of be there to understand it. And somebody mentioned tonight and I have to we're never going to build another crest more in Denver, a neighborhood like this close in or another hilltop or the beautiful neighborhoods on the west side, because we just don't have the land mass and the land and land is very expensive. And actually, we know also that these the these kinds of single family detached homes on large lots aren't very ecological, and they don't do very much for our ability to create transit. And it just never going to happen again. So in in a way. And and, of course, much of our city is made up of these kinds of neighborhoods. And so in a way, we have to think about the preservation of them because we aren't going to make anymore. And I think that that is the feeling that people have about this particular project, even though it's a very small project. It. It it's very it's very closely held. In their hearts and in their imaginations of their.
Speaker 1: Of their. Their environment.
Speaker 6: And the last point I'd like to make, and I think this is really important and I think you heard this also a little bit from the developer. I believe there is still a compromise waiting to happen. They aren't saying no development. They're just saying not this one. And I do believe there is a compromise waiting to happen. And for these reasons, I will be voting against this zoning, and I urge my fellow council people to do the same.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Um, our next speaker, Councilman Fox, followed by Councilman Nevitt.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Madam President. You know, council has been criticized in the past for courtesy zoning. And the definition of courtesy zoning, as I understand, is when you just simply defer to the council person in the area and everybody automatically goes that way. Tonight, I want to give some reasons why. I hope, Councilwoman Sussman, you don't see this as discourteous zoning, but I cannot go and come to the same conclusion that you have. And I want to explain why. First of all, I really do appreciate the fact that the developer has downsized this to the third iteration. I mean, to me, I would have had more difficulty had they come in with their original proposal than I very well might have been with you. But I think at this point it actually has been sized for the space. I need to tell you the story of a neighborhood. We have the tale of two cities. Well, here we're going to have the tale of two neighborhoods. I look out and I see the people who are sitting here from Chris Moore. And it reminds me of a neighborhood in my district, in fact, very similar, quite quite similar in age, I would say my neighborhood may be slightly more ethnic, ethnically diverse. But other than that. Profession's much the same. Arbiter You've heard the term Pinehurst. I one of my areas is Pinehurst Estates and the residence. If I were to bring them right in here sitting next to you, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference except for the orange. And Pinehurst Estates is a single family area, primarily ranch. And it has the same kind of configuration that is being discussed tonight. You have the single family homes, a large area of single family homes. And then because Sheridan is bordered by Sheridan and Quincy to the south, so you have two arterials. You have multifamily density. Next. There is not a barrier. There's not a park. It is like some of the people said, well, gee, it comes right up to my house. Comes right up to their house. And then there is another large spot. And Mike Shanahan, you'll like this one. It is a sunrise assisted living right on the corner. And folks, it works. There are not complaints that come out of there. This works for the community. And Sunrise Island has been an asset in our area because we have people who have their parents who are getting older and they are already to the assisted living stage, or they have actually had the wife still living in one of the Pinehurst areas. And then they go into that assisted living. So. It's hard for me to identify with the fears that you are expressing, because I have that in my area and I know that it works for the citizens. Frankly, I like your plan even better with the age targeted home than the sunrise. But either way, I. I don't believe the fears are going to come about and my. My residents. Are happy with their neighborhood. It is still a neighborhood. So from that reason, I just can't get to the point that I can say no to what I consider is a reasonable proposal. And so I will be supporting it tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman fights Councilman Nevitt.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to. When things like this happen, I want to thank everybody for being so engaged in participating and staying here. I mean, not not everybody that is still here, but many of you still are. And I know how hard those benches are.
Speaker 4: So it's a testament to how much you care and.
Speaker 8: Your eagerness to participate in this. So thank you for that. And I totally understand where the opponents of this project and this rezoning are coming from. Everybody loves their neighborhood, and when you love your neighborhood, you don't want it to change or. You only want it to change in the direction of the things that you already know and you like about your neighborhood. But this is precisely.
Speaker 4: The the.
Speaker 8: Kernel of the problem that we face as a city. And indeed, this is the kernel of the problem that we have faced in America.
Speaker 4: With urban development. Since the availability of the mass availability of the automobile. We have an image of the good life.
Speaker 8: A quiet street of single family homes, a large yard for kids to play in space in the back for a garden. And this is an entirely.
Speaker 4: Reasonable image of the good life for anyone to have.
Speaker 8: It's reasonable for anyone to want to seek out. And frankly, as you have tonight, it's reasonable for anyone to want to protect and.
Speaker 4: Defend once they find it. Unfortunately, we have a problem of scale. A problem of scale at the level of the individual. The pursuit of that image, of the good life is wholesome and positive. Unfortunately.
Speaker 8: When that image of the good life is multiplied across a large enough population.
Speaker 4: The result is far from positive. The result is sprawl. And we know what this looks like. It looks like Los Angeles.
Speaker 8: It looks like.
Speaker 4: Phenix. It looks like Northern Virginia.
Speaker 8: Nobody here wants to be those places. But nobody wants to compromise their.
Speaker 4: Image of the good life either.
Speaker 8: As was famously said by, I think it was the mayor of Salt Lake City. Our citizens. The only thing our citizens.
Speaker 4: Hate more than sprawl is.
Speaker 8: Density. That obviously is. Cognitive dissonance. And that kind of cognitive dissonance is not a formula for success. And we need to resolve that cognitive dissonance or we will fail as a city and we face particular pressure here in Denver with respect to that cognitive dissonance, because people.
Speaker 4: Are moving here in.
Speaker 13: Droves. People are moving here in droves.
Speaker 4: We can complain, we can lament. But since most of us are.
Speaker 8: Immigrants ourselves and we all know damn well why we came here, because it's such a great place and.
Speaker 4: Few of us have any interest in leaving it.
Speaker 8: We can hardly blame them. We are going to add in the next 20 years. You have a kid today, your kids. We going off in college. There will be a million more people here. A million more people.
Speaker 4: The population of the city and county of Denver is 650,000.
Speaker 8: We're going to add a million people in the next 20 years. Where are they going to live? I think we face one of three paths. The first is to maintain our cognitive dissonance. We hate sprawl, but we hate density more. And we're not going to sacrifice our image of the good life.
Speaker 4: We will keep Denver.
Speaker 8: A relatively low density city, and the bulk of the population growth will simply have to go somewhere else. The million.
Speaker 4: People who will.
Speaker 13: Move to Denver. They will move.
Speaker 4: To Denver, but they will have to live.
Speaker 8: In the surrounding suburbs, but they will still.
Speaker 4: Come into the city.
Speaker 8: To work. They'll still come into the city to have fun. And most of them will drive. And it will be awful for all of us. This is the secret formula, the secret sauce that makes Los Angeles such a wonderful place. Phenix is such a great.
Speaker 4: Desirable city to live in. We'll have preserved the built.
Speaker 8: Environment that we cherish, but we will have destroyed our quality of life. I don't think we want to go down that road. The second path is to make a radical course correction.
Speaker 4: If density is the solution to sprawl, then we'll have to.
Speaker 8: Dramatically densify our city. We can't be guided by sentimentality. Single family homes need to be replaced with row houses. Row houses need to be replaced with towers.
Speaker 4: The million people that are moving here can be accommodated in a much more dense, much more sustainable.
Speaker 8: And much more radically urban environment. And that, too. Frankly, it would be awful. That's a that's the secret formula of China.
Speaker 4: We'll have avoided.
Speaker 8: Sprawl, but we'll have lost the soul of our city in the process. And I don't think we want to go there either.
Speaker 4: The third path is the path.
Speaker 8: That I prefer and that in many ways we are already on. We are already executing this in Denver.
Speaker 4: We need to preserve and protect the homes.
Speaker 8: Of Denver's existing stable family neighborhoods. Denver's old neighborhoods are a key component of the character of Denver. What we love about Denver and they need to be defended. But at the same.
Speaker 4: Time, we need to take advantage.
Speaker 8: Of every single opportunity that we have to maximize density with redevelopment in the areas around light rail stations, along transit routes, on our major commercial districts and along major arterials. We need to maximize density. The million.
Speaker 4: People that are moving here can be accommodated.
Speaker 8: In more dense, more sustainable urban structures. But we don't have to sell our souls.
Speaker 4: To do it.
Speaker 8: And everyone needs to contribute. There is no neighborhood so precious and so perfect that it should not be asked to contribute to this enterprise, to solving this problem that we need to solve. In my own.
Speaker 4: District in South Denver, I have been a staunch defender.
Speaker 8: Of our stable, single family neighborhoods. I led the first neighborhood scale down.
Speaker 4: Zoning in Denver. But at the same time, I have.
Speaker 13: Also been a.
Speaker 8: Relentless advocate for dramatically greater density around our light rail stations, along our commercial corridors, and along our transit routes. This site that we're looking at.
Speaker 4: Is not in the interior.
Speaker 8: Of the neighborhood. It's on the edge of the neighborhood. It lies on a significant transit route. It's a block from another significant transit route. It's adjacent to an important amenity. We need to site the density we need at sites like this. I have the greatest respect for my colleague, Councilwoman Sussman, and I understand the difficult position that this decision.
Speaker 4: Puts her in. But I cannot stand idly by.
Speaker 8: And indulge the cognitive dissonance of abhorring.
Speaker 13: Sprawl.
Speaker 8: But refusing to do anything about it. I've chosen the third path for my own district. I believe this site and this development project represents that third path here. So I will be supporting the rezoning tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Nevitt. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President, I. If there was ever a moment to record. Chris Nevitt That's probably it right there. I think you did a great job in summarizing that. But I think we're going to end up in totally different spots tonight. And I say that because. I think of that argument and I think of density and I think of or it's appropriate and I do think of that soul of Denver and where it's at and it's all over our cities. We tend to look at things when it's brought in front of us through a zoning code and this stream of code and ESU, suburban form, general urban, things like that. We tend to really hone in on that and geek out on that and just see the city like that. There are plenty of arguments that were right on point on both sides tonight. And I listen to every single person who came up to the microphone, took notes. And try to gauge where we were at back and forth and also just to feel the energy in the room. Now, we've had folks come in these chambers. And say, we got to stop this rezoning and oh, my whole neighborhood is opposed to it. And there's only maybe three or four people in the neighborhood, in that neighborhood, but in the chambers, they speak for the neighborhood. There is a few times that we've been up at night like this when the community really turns out and it's something that's very serious and we listen. The last time I can remember. Not supporting a rezoning. That I can remember. Was when I asked my colleagues to not support a rezoning at 645, Wolf, in 2007. There were other conditions at stake. Just traffic, but safety. It was the not the most appropriate use or request for density in the area. We just had way too many police calls. Yeah, way too much responsibility by the property owner. Completely different from this. And that's what I really, really want to hone into tonight and a message for a lot of the folks who are here from the neighborhood. I know that there are issues in your neighborhood that are serious. And I've heard folks talk about gangs. I've heard talk about a crime wave. These rezonings don't happen in a vacuum. I'd ask you and invite you to come into some of our other neighborhoods and see what it's like when we truly talk about gangs. And truly talk about violence and break ins and lack of police response time and property values. I can't see that right now because everybody's private values up in Denver, mostly. But when you hear these sirens that you hear outdoors tonight all the time. It's a completely different scenario. I don't want to belittle you when I say sometimes we have to look at our own privilege and understand where we're at. Right. But I also. Here. What you said tonight. And see you all here tonight. And how organized you are, how passionate you are about this. And, you know, I have friends on both sides of this of this issue, and I respect people on both sides of this. This vote tonight is wrong reasoning to me, but I couldn't agree more with Councilwoman Sussman. These are your constituents, Councilman, but they also are all of our constituents. And I respect what you have done and I respect your voice tonight. And the one thing I really have to say in terms of some of the testimony I really detest, when somebody belittles our community and belittles folks who come into this chamber and spend their time away from their families to come in here, and they're not paid to do it. I detest that. And I detest being threatened on city council saying or else. I really do not enjoy that. And the comments that were made tonight that belittle the community for using Legos, for using something creative, for understanding zoning. My community understand zoning that way. And we don't have the privilege to go to architecture and planning school to learn what you may know. But I detest that. I don't like it when folks belittle people in these chambers. It doesn't matter where they come from or who they are. I detest it. And that's what cost you the vote tonight for me. I think it says something that you all came out here. I think it says something that it's not. You're not the only neighborhood that's feeling this pressure. And yes, we have to figure that out. Yes. We got to determine what is. What is it that that makes Denver so valuable? And what is it that we keep and where do we put place density? Absolutely. I truly detest when folks belittle good community organizing and participation. So with that, Madam President, I am going to also vote no and be in solidarity with my colleague, Councilwoman Sussman, in this vote.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 12: Madam President, pro tem. And thank you to all of you who are still here and looking at your listing quite intensely. This has been an evening of extremes. Number one, it's extremely late. But the other thing that I hear is single family homes or single family homes with granny flats or 120 units or maybe 75 units. But the difference that each side seems seems extreme that each side sees. I've heard that we need this density so that the so that we can have more affordability. And I've heard these units won't be affordable enough. I've heard that this conforms to blueprint and I've heard it defies blueprint. I have heard misstatements of fact. I have heard things that I agree with and things that I disagree with from both sides. You know, like Councilman Nevett, I was very involved in the 2010 zoning code in a good part of Capitol Hill that was zoned for multi-family high rise. We did indeed down zone. And we had our criteria and other in other situations, we did what I might call right zone. We looked at what the development rate was on that property and we tried to match it with the form in the new code so that it was about the same amount of square feet of development . And when I hope I not to take your name in vain, Councilwoman Shepard. But when Susan Shepard first came on to council, she faced an extremely difficult situation in her neighborhood, probably every bit as difficult, if not more than the one in front of us tonight. And she came to some of us on council and she said, The neighbors want me to downtown. Could you support me in that? I said, You know what? I feel sort of like we've had a compact here. I feel sort of like we gave our word that we we rights owned it. Unless you can convince me that we didn't, rights own it. I don't think I can change that. So among all the things I heard tonight, that term, while it's not a criteria for rezoning or not rezoning stuck with me. I have voted for numerous up zoning in my neighborhood, in other neighborhoods across the city, some very contentious, some really old are producing, some where I know I really disappointed friends and constituents in my district. But let me tell you how tonight's rezoning is different from those. First of all, there is not a plan for this neighborhood. It's different from a from a rezoning we did on South University that had a University Hills plan that said it could be that along that edge you could have 3 to 5 stories. We don't have a plan like that. We can sort of guess at that. We don't have that. It's different from Cherry Creek because in Cherry Creek we worked two years on a plan that, while controversial, got support at council. Would no one, as I recall, maybe one speaking against it. Secondly, this is an area of stability. Granted, there there are areas that are vacant that need development, but it's not an area of change like Cherry Creek. Thirdly. We did end up zoning. It was, I think, a PUD in northwest Denver for eligible shrine. I had some some quandary about that. It was an area of stability. It was a site. That, you know, they were loosely leaving an institution, but there was a real positive for the neighborhood because that particular institution while we up. So that particular institution was worth saving. So I see this as a rezoning where the neighbors have made a case for their opposition and that it conforms to criteria that I have seen. It's hard. I went back and forth during the meeting tonight as I listened to all of you. And let me tell you, be careful what you ask for. I did turn down a rezoning early in my time on council. I think it was probably as early as 2003 or very early 2004. Well, within the first six months I was on counted on council. I voted against the development at 55 South Garfield. There was Cherry Creek East. There were townhomes on the block, not single family homes. This rezoning would have been 28 units per acre. And it was a local street. The last project 12 years later just got built. There were only four city lots there 20, 28 units per acre, and it took 12 years and four different projects to get that done. So you better decide what it is you want there. I think this is an attractive project. I admired the developer for compromising and I really. Have. It's hard to decide on this, but I think the case is there that this zoning does not meet our criteria. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Canete.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Madam President. I'll end this suspense by starting with the fact that I am undecided. So there you have that. I'm hoping a couple other people chime in because I'm not going to break the tie here. I guess that I want to start by thanking everyone for being here and for the thoughtful work. I do want to clarify, I feel like a couple of my colleagues have left the impression that the community is united against this zoning, and I actually don't think that's accurate. We had residents of Cress Moore, we had residents of Hilltop who are across the street and closer to this site than probably some residents of Chris Moore who testified today and others who are in the vicinity. So so I called what I the way that I describe this, I can list that I see a lot of people shaking their heads. But the Cohens are residents of Chris Moore. You have Bob Moody. You have people who've seen this. So there are residents of Chris Moore who testified in favor of this zoning tonight. So I don't want to see heads shaking. You have residents who are divided on this project. They are on the record. We have their addresses. You have a divided community. And that to me is important to note because I don't appreciate it when people say where United and the council voted against us. You have people with differing opinions in your neighborhood, some of whom have emailed us, some of whom were here tonight. So I think that that's important to acknowledge. So let me go through the points on both sides that that I'm I'm struggling with. So to me, the weakest part of this application is the changed circumstance. I do think that the change on this site I mean, I drive by this site probably four or five times a week . And it's clear to me that this site is struggling. It's you know, many of you described it. It's not an attractive site. It's in decline. And that is a changed circumstance in the same way that the base left. LOWRY That site changed, right? The hospital left ninth and Colorado, that site changed. But that's not really the same as describing an entire change in the area. And I think that point was well made by one of the speakers. And so I am struggling with whether there's enough changed circumstance to justify the legal criteria, which is really my job. My job is not to count residents for and residents against. It's to hear that input and use it to analyze the criteria. That's that's what the code tells me to do. Politics, you know, is is another piece of this. But but the code says you're here to help me interpret the criteria. So that's how I'm using your testimony tonight as well as the rest of the record. So that's the thing I'm struggling with the most. On the other side of it, I will say that it has always been my position and I feel like I've been fairly consistent in describing it, that I always look to see whether and how a community has impacted a development project. But it is never my belief that a community gets to decide what a landowner does on their property. Right. So those are two different things. I do not believe that any landowner who doesn't do what the community asks them to should not get their zoning. But I do believe that there has to be evidence of impact. And in this case I see a lot of evidence of impact. I see a significant reduction in the number of units. I see major access concessions, which I frankly think might be problematic. But if everybody's agreed that they're okay, I think that's a major win for this community. No one will be entering and cedar. No. Won't be entering on the back side. So I see some major concessions. And to me, that's that's the threshold. It's not does the community get to decide what a private landowner does? It's do they have an input? Do they have impact? And in this case, that's clearly met for me. Secondly, another clarification. You know, I know Councilwoman Sussman was very eloquent in her remarks, and but I did I felt a little concerned about one of your comments about the fact that this looks like it's rising out of the park. Nothing. This development doesn't actually touch the park. I think that's really important for us to kind of put on the record, on the on the on the north side of this project is a maintenance area which is not the prettiest part of the park . There's some trailers, there's some equipment. Again, I drive by the site a lot. You know, on the the west side, you have townhomes that touch the park that already exist. And then, you know, on the on the further west side, you've got you've got the street, you've got locust. So nothing on this development actually touches the park. And I just I think that that's a little missed. I feel like it's a little misleading to describe it as, you know, right in the park, because the truth is that there's already other things that buffer it, the maintenance area, the other townhomes and then there's street. So that's a point in favor in my in my opinion in my analysis of the zoning that that there is actually already homes closer to the park than these apartments will be. The third factor in this one, I will be very honest, might actually be the deciding factor is it really concerns me, the anti rental sentiment that I hear and not as strongly in some of the testimony tonight, but it certainly came out very strongly in the early communications from the neighborhood with the earlier proposal. And it certainly was a factor for the developer in making the decision to change from apartments to more for sale product. I have a strong believer in homeownership as a path to building wealth, and it's a really important factor. It's why I worked on the inclusionary housing ordinance. It's why I believe in more condos. But I really I mean, we do have a need for rental. Many, many seniors who want to downsize don't just want to get rid of the yard. They also want to rent. There are many of your children, my future six year old when he grows up someday who need rental as a transition. Or there's people who work service jobs in our city who may be able to afford a market rent but are never going to get the down payment for a house. And I have to say that if the deal breaker for this community that has been opposed is that they just don't like rental and they don't think rental belongs in Chris Moore, that just does not sit well. I really do believe that. And this is where I agree with Councilman Nevett that every community has an obligation to provide a mix of housing, and that mix needs to include rental. And so, you know, if this were restricted rental, it would probably be a very easy call for me. But, you know, we're talking about market rental. But I think about the traffic point here. And if I had a choice between 25 for sale units for families where there's likely to be two earners coming and going to work . And I had 50 units for seniors who are likely to be retired, whose cars probably state parked most of the time. You're probably going to have a lot more traffic with the single family home, with the dual income earner to afford the 500 to $800000 price tag than you will from the senior in the housing, just in terms. So I think that somehow the reputation of rental has really gone awry. And again, again, I see heads nodding, but again I have emails and I have testimony and we had a commitment from the developer to reduce the amount of rental and switch it to for sale. That came from somewhere, right? Those emails exist. That conversation, you know, it was brought up by several of the speakers tonight. Not by all of them, but by several. So. So that concerns me. So. So that's kind of what I'm dealing with. I have some concerns about the criteria being met. But I see a lot of places where I believe this is an arterial. I believe that the context closest to it matters most. I see a buffer for the park, and I also believe that rental is a part of a very strong community, that a mix of individuals is a fair representation of our city and a fair representation for each community. So hopefully someone who speaks after me will shed some light and help me make my decision. But I remain torn. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman McKinney. Councilman. Ah, take a.
Speaker 7: Well, I think this is. There were a lot of really important points that were brought out on all sides of this issue. And so it makes, I think, the decision a little bit challenging. But I want to hit on a couple of key points in some of them were related to some of the questions that I asked because. In the rewrite of the zoning code, it drastically changed how this body looks at zoning compared to how it used to. And tonight is an example of the kind of zoning we used to see and on a consistent basis. We were here pretty late dealing with the details that were in the application similar to what we're doing tonight. The Planning Office has, as you heard stated earlier, looks at these details after the zoning is passed. And and I think this is where some of the angst is that neighborhoods are feeling across the city where they don't really get to see this level of detail. You all push that envelope by, you know, hiring some of your own folks to look at details. Other neighborhoods, many other neighborhoods in the city don't have the luxury of having the financial tools or the expertize within the neighborhoods to be able to do that. But you all were able to force the issue of having this level of detail brought forward as part of this application. One of the things that that I'm struggling with a little bit is that we have many, many churches in single family neighborhoods that sit on large lots with large, you know, large parking lots where we've seen some of our churches struggle. And, you know, it it could be easy to just sell off that property. And then, you know, this could be seen as a precedent setting kind of move where churches now become the prime spot. Because, you know, if you look at our city, we don't have a lot of vacant lots where larger developments could take place. We have things that are happening more like what's occurring in my neighborhood where existing. Residential structures are being purchased of land assemblages happening and they're completely scraped and you're seeing the density changing and the character of the neighborhood changing quite drastically. I mean, to the point that we've got, you know, a Highland neighborhood coming forward with three overlay zoning because of the concern of the kind of effect it's having on the single family character of the neighborhood where they felt that part of that area was already, you know, a stabilized neighborhood. And so I think this this development pressure and as I was, you know, campaigning across the city, this issue was heard all across the board around, you know, density and development pressures. And in all of that. Councilman never hit part of the nail on the head in terms of the fact that we have a saturated market right now. We don't have a lot of available housing, both for sale and rental. And we've been building rental like crazy. But as fast as they're built and open, they're filled up. That's right. We've got people gravitating to this city. I'm struggling with the issue of the fact that we've we've got so many churches in our city that are in single family residential neighborhoods that are considered, you know, stable neighborhoods where we could see this kind of thing happening and in affecting the character of those communities. I appreciate the work that the developer has done in going the extra mile with the neighborhood, really trying to work through finding something that is is doable for you financially and doable for the neighborhood. Clearly, this project with the details on the table didn't get there based on the kind of input that we heard from so many neighbors tonight. So I'm I'm struggling with where I'm going to be on this vote as well. And it's it's not an easy one. I have tried to weigh this all out in my mind on all sides, looking at, you know, what's in the best interest of the city, the neighborhood, that particular location. But then I look at what we're dealing with across the city and other neighborhoods where the pressures are so great. They're dealing with their neighborhood just changing drastically. In in neighborhoods are coming out saying, okay, we want a historic district, we want an overlay zoning. We want we want tools to try to protect the residential character of our neighborhood because we've been identified in Blueprint in Denver as an area of stability. And so when you look at that, you've got to look at all of the details and, you know, the different tools that are available. And so in this case, I'm, you know, I'll wait until the vote comes down, but I'm I'm just sort of right on that teetering edge, trying to figure out what's what's the right the right call on this one. So I'll just stop at that. Madam President, I know I've got other colleagues that want to speak it, so. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilman Brown.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I know where I stand on this issue, and I'm for it. And I'll tell you why. Because I 14 years on this council, I've heard much of the same comments that I heard from the folks who are against it on other projects. Like someone said tonight. Our way of life is at risk. Really? You don't believe that a? For the last couple of weeks, I've been driving around my district and looking at projects that I had. That were highly controversial. And that people thought the world was going to come to an end. If they were approved. And it was interesting to see them because you drive by you look at the landscaping as it has matured and. You just say, how can people be so upset? At this at this project. There was one last week, and I had my favorite tape of Garth Brooks. In his song about back when the old stuff was new. In this. These projects now look old already. After seven or eight years. Five years. This project on the ground. You wouldn't even think about it. It will blend right in XML Park. And I had the same problem in Washington Park. Washington Park is not a country club. Chris Park is not a country club. It's a public. And when comments are made, we cherish our park. It's not your park is a public park. So we need to start with that as a premise. And. I listened tonight to Scott Robinson, to Marx, Adele, to Bruce O'Donnell and Bob Cohen, and I think they hit it right on the head. That you guys. I worked with the developer. I think he bent over backwards and made considerable compromises and said, I've always said compromise is not a four letter word. And I think that thanks to you guys, this is a better project. I would not have liked the first proposal. Peter. And I'll tell you now, I could not have supported it. It was too much. But I think thanks to these neighbors working with you and you listening. It made it a better project. And that's why I'm pleased to support it tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilman Brook.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank everybody for being here to AM. Obviously, this means a lot to you. And you talk about two groups or quick the neighborhood. You are well prepared for this debate. You work really hard. You you organize incredibly hard. I got a Facebook request from your neighborhood that's never happened before. So you all know what you see up here is a lot of turmoil, a lot of weighing about where our city is and which which direction do you go. And I think you should be proud. I've never seen this dais like this before. So well done. I want to thank the developer. You know, I think developers get a lot of heat in the city and $1.8 million is nothing to snuff out, especially when it's not your money. And so I know that the developer tried their best to get a solution that works. Here's what here's what I'm here's the major issue I'm walking away with. And it's traffic is transportation issues. Here's the good news, bad news scenario. The bad news is this is this is not our scope to deal with all the transportation issues and traffic issues in your neighborhood. The good news is we can deal with it. We had a budget conversation a year ago. Colleagues, you will remember this. We granted CPD 35 FTE, which they needed, by the way. And public works were not meeting their. Basic requirements. And we at that point in that budget meeting. Ask for more FTE for public works specifically around transportation. And. And the mayor did make an increase, but. Our our development is outpacing our transportation infrastructure improvements. That's that's one of the real issues that's going on in this city. You're articulating it. I'm hearing articulate in every neighborhood I'm downtown. So I use multimodal. But when I drive my car to Daegu, I realize how much traffic is going on in the city. I went we went to the the Hirsch Hirschfeld had an event in councilman assessments district. I went down, believes I was six and made a right on Quebec and it took me 45 minutes. What you are saying is real? My belief is this site will not dramatically increase it. But you are facing some severe traffic issues and we need to address it. Our our call, our legal obligation before you today is are the plans consistent? Are they in contexts? For approval. And for me, as I look at that and I think you've heard some some of my colleagues say. They believe they are. They believe they're not. As I look at this whole context as well as I look at this existing site, it reflects the context to me. Now, that's not the information that you want to hear, but it's what I believe is in front of us. 150 or 120 units was way too much. We came down considerably and you guys got them down. Is that the right makeup? We will see. The developer has gone on to make some more concessions to work with the neighborhood. And I believe they will have to live up to those. The developer will have site plan review. I hope that he's working with neighborhood representatives and you can ask for that now to continue to work with them on that. So I am I am voting in favor of this. I am torn, though, because you all made an incredible. Case tonight. This morning. And so, you know, I'll be I'll be supporting this because I do believe that it is an. In line with our plans that we have with the city and county in Denver in this area. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, any other. Any other comments by members of council? None. Madam Secretary. Roll Call on Council Bill 56.
Speaker 1: Susman No.
Speaker 5: Brooks, I.
Speaker 4: Brown, i.
Speaker 5: But I can each.
Speaker 1: Fast.
Speaker 5: Layman. Paz?
Speaker 8: Lopez No.
Speaker 5: Nevett I. Ortega No. Rob No. Shepherd I can each a layman. I. Ortega.
Speaker 7: Already voted Tory.
Speaker 5: Rob. Madam President, I.
Speaker 3: That's right. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Nine eyes. Three nays.
Speaker 3: Nine eyes, three nays. Council Bill 56. I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry. I voted one way and I hit the wrong button. So what was your goal? I don't know if yours is reflecting the way I voted.
Speaker 9: She voted no.
Speaker 5: You voted.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 4: Eight for.
Speaker 7: Doesn't change the outcome, but.
Speaker 5: I'll change it to a no.
Speaker 7: For the purpose.
Speaker 5: Of the ADA. Accurate nays.
Speaker 3: By Monday, June 29th, there'll be a required public hearing on Council Bill 346, changing the zoning classification of 301 South Cherokee Street. Any protest against Council Bill 346 must be filed with the Council offices no later than Monday, June 22nd. See no other business before this body? This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 0: Denver eight. On TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 1: You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property at 195 South Monaco Parkway from E-SU-DX to S-MU-3 in Council District 5. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 195 South Monaco Parkway from E-SU-DX to S-MU-3 in Council District 5. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-4-15
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06012015_15-0304
|
Speaker 5: And I want to commend his vision for that, because our hope had always been to have affordable housing and to be able to have a walkable community and for places that if they were in play downtown to be able to walk. So now everybody's going to be coming through Reno, including all the taxi cab drivers, through a very, very beautiful Brighton Boulevard in the surrounding area. So I'm supporting this. It's probably no surprise any of you and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Our next person is Jeannie Robb.
Speaker 8: Well, did you want to go to Councilman Brooks first? I would certainly yield.
Speaker 5: Oh, I am so sorry.
Speaker 7: That's okay.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 7: I didn't.
Speaker 5: I didn't accidentally erased your name. I'm just kidding.
Speaker 7: I didn't sign it. I didn't sign in because you gave me the brief.
Speaker 5: Compton Brooks. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I guess I just want to open was saying, you know, I'll be supporting this business improvement district. I have. I believe this is our ninth in the city. 11th in the city. While we're growing, we're getting. I'll be supporting this this bit because I've seen firsthand the the return on investment the city gets from from bids from Colfax to downtown and now here. It's really exciting. And to see what you guys are doing, I, I just have kind of two words of encouragement. It's around great work. It's a, you know. You know, encouraging you for what you've done and the growth of what the work that you have in front of you, which would be a lot. One, the great work is somebody mentioned it before. Nowhere in the city do we have business leaders and artists working together and on the same page and coming up with plans. And so this is incredibly it's it's hard to bring two folks of different economic statures together and come up with the plan. And so we I think the city has a lot to learn from you all in that, you know, the other piece is is you make ugly look really cool and and I can I can I can say this because I basically live in Reno. Technically, I live in the whole neighborhood. We are not rhino, we are coal, but we live right next to rhino. And it is just it's amazing. I was on a bike ride on Saturday and I came down and Rhino is a great, beautiful day and everyone was in Rhino at the breweries out and about. And I'm just like, is the streets everything that you all said about the streets not being complete, no sidewalks, nowhere to park, but people are everywhere. And so you guys have done a great job and making it desirable. So good work on that and and working together business owners, property owners coming together and getting an overwhelming support the growth. It's funny that you have keeping while rhino don't because that's going to be the growth that's going to be the hardest thing to do is to keep it affordable for individuals to keep it eclectic enough and cool for the generation you're currently serving. Because there's another thing cool the next time. And so I just want to push you to be thinking out of the box. And because we don't have anything like this in the city and to continue doing that and our our promise on this side is that we will allow rhino to be a canvas and try new things with the city. So we're we're excited. And I'm excited to support this hope the rest of our colleagues do. And I just want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for her 12 years over this district and her investing in her working with all of these developers and leaders to and not many people get to see their investment come to fruition and and you're getting to see it. So it's pretty cool if.
Speaker 5: You see keep. Councilman Robb.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. The work that you've done is truly remarkable. In fact, even though I didn't attend the committee meeting, I was able to watch part of it and printed out the slide presentation and took it to the Cherry Creek Steering Committee last week to present. Because even though Cherry Creek was one of the first two bids in the city and county of Denver, the business community and the neighbors have great desires to do infrastructure improvements that lie outside of the bid boundaries. In this model for putting a guide and a bid together in the overlapping, it has some potential for the area . Of course, people, like some people in the audience tonight were concerned, well, how will I know that my priorities are met? How do you set priorities? And I pointed out what a fast job you guys did. I said from October 2014 to May of 2015, I've never seen a bid and get it done so fast. It and I'm so glad to hear tonight that it's been a lot of years because I was thinking you were a real miracle workers in terms of accountability. I want to put my $0.02 in. So often when the bid operating plans come to council, they go through on consent. I think I can remember two or three times that they've been at committee. And I even though a bid is a really a creation of this of state of the state, I think we have a responsibility just on the transparency issues that were raised tonight, which, you know, are always a concern. Frankly, I think we have that responsibility to review them nine times out of ten. We won't have any comments. We won't have any changes that help. But it helps us know what we're ultimately accountable for in setting up these operating plans and budgets. Because even though the money doesn't run into the general fund, it is public money. So that would be my my wish for the next council is that people who have the bids in their district ask to have them present at committee periodically. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Councilman fights.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Madam President. Because of my concerns that I laid out earlier for financial structures, I want to be sure to address how I see this as entirely different. And I am very much in support of what has been presented here tonight. I had asked the question, what is the responsibility of the taxpayer? This is a 180 degrees on the other side of that. These are individuals who have joined together coming to us, not saying we want something from you, but saying let us tax ourselves so that we can make these improvements and so that we can at a later time. The second item is kind of make even enhanced public improvements. I mean, they are coming to us asking to take the responsibility of doing this for themselves. A fair amount of public money has gone into various aspects of rhino, which makes it even more pleasing to me to see people stepping forward and saying, we want to contribute as well. And we want to have control over that. So I'm just extremely proud of your doing that. Thank you so much. And you're setting a fine example.
Speaker 5: Councilman Ortega. I'll be brief. In 2003, when I left City Council, we had adopted Blueprint. Denver in this area was defined as one of the new growth areas for the city. And since that time, we have seen almost complete transformation. And I know there's still a lot yet to be done in terms of transforming. But to just see what has happened is is very exciting. And I know for those of you who are the boots on the ground, you're living it day in and day out. And it's it's fascinating to go down to the area, as Councilman Brooks said, and just see the vitality and the the amount of people. I think the challenge is how do we ensure that pedestrian bike safety is number one? Because you have the conflict of industrial vehicles from some of the existing industrial businesses in the area. You know, it's a straight shot without with very few lights, you know. So at least on Brighton corridor, I think you can say the same about Blake Street and what is it, Market Street that are one way corridors as well , that oftentimes people just kind of fly down those streets, they drive them pretty often. And so I look forward to hearing about the progress at the at the end or, you know, at your after your annual meeting and when your your budget request comes before city council. But way to go. I mean, you guys have done an outstanding job and it's exciting to see the progress that continues to be made in this area. So, yes, I will be supporting this tonight as well. Councilman Ortega, other comments by members of council seen none. Madam Secretary, roll call, please on council bill 304.
Speaker 1: Brown.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 1: Fats Pi coinage.
Speaker 6: Layman hi Nevitt hi Ortega.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 6: Rob I shepherd i. Susman I. Brooks, i. Madam President.
Speaker 5: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 1: Oh. Drum roll, please.
Speaker 5: What happened?
Speaker 6: We've got it.
Speaker 4: We're all.
Speaker 0: In good.
Speaker 1: Hands.
Speaker 5: 11 eyes is going too fast. Okay. That was a lot of pent up enthusiasm. David For the next one counter Bill, three of four has passed. Councilman Brown, will you please put council bill three or nine on the floor?
Speaker 9: Thank you. Madam President, I move the council bill three or nine be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance creating and establishing the RiNo Business Improvement District, appointing the initial members of the Board of Directors of the District, and approving the Initial Operating Plan and preliminary 2016 budget therefore. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Approves the creation and establishment of the RiNo Business Improvement District, appointing the initial members of the Board of Directors of the RiNo Business Improvement District, and approving the initial Operating Plan and preliminary 2016 budget located in Council Districts 8 and 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 5-12-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06012015_15-0309
|
Speaker 5: Okay. The public hearing for 309 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: I have the opposite problem that Andy does. Mike's here. Okay. Sure. So John Carter, what Department of Finance Council Bill 150309 is for an ordinance to approve the creation of the Regional General Improvement District. The boundaries of the district are roughly I-70 on North 29th Street from the south, the railroad tracks and the on the west and on the east. So this sounds like the same boundaries, but it's actually a smaller subset of the bid boundaries on the west side of the Rhino neighborhood. The the primary focus of the idea will be to fund infrastructure improvements with the district's boundaries. First, the JDA will provide up to $3 million for enhanced streetscape improvements along Brighton Boulevard that will be installed in conjunction with the city's planned reconstruction for the street next year. Districts capital improvements will include trees, landscaping, irrigation plus pedestrian and landmark lighting along Brighton Boulevard. These capital improvements will be funded through a one time charge of roughly $200 per linear foot for properties fronting Brighton Boulevard. The guide will main will maintain to maintain these enhancements by imposing a levy of four mils on all real property within the guide. The Guide. The Guide Mill levy is estimated to raise roughly $200,000 in the first year, similar to the Ryan Obeid business. Personal property will be excluded from the guide's mill levy as the financial capacity of the guide expands. Revenue raised to the mill levy will also go towards funding additional infrastructure projects across the neighborhood. Future projects for the guide are anticipated to include a study and potential improvements to neighborhood lighting rain over riverfront access improvements, enhancements to the forthcoming Rhino Park and or enhanced and or enhancements to additional access roads within the district boundaries. The services facility, facilities and improvements to be provided by the guide are not intended to duplicate or replace the services, facilities and improvements provided by the city and county of Denver within the proposed district boundaries. The guide is being created to provide enhanced and otherwise unavailable services and improvements within those boundaries per state statute. City Council sets is the official board of Directors for the Final Guide. However, the proposed interest and proposed ordinance also creates a district advisory board which is which is delegated many of the day to day operations of the district. The Advisory Board will also recommend a district annual work plan and budget for city council approval each year. The initial advisory boards consist of seven members appointed by the mayor and confirmed by City Council through creation ordinance. Presenting and shall and show consist of at least two artists, creative enterprise, property owners and two residential representatives. The initial members of the board are proposed as follows and. HAYES Tom Gordon, Chris of all time, Jonathan Kaplan, Jason Winkler, Larry Burgess and Tracey Real as part of as part of the creation process, the petitioners, led by the steering committee of property owners, held several outreach events to ensure ample opportunity for property owners within the district to learn about the business plan, creation and operations. This includes informational mailings, newsletters distributed to property owners and numerous public events and small group meetings with property owners and businesses. Additionally, the petitioners held three public information events targeted specifically to residential property owners. Local media outlets also published articles on the guide's organizing efforts and planned infrastructure projects. Approval. Approval of the operating plan does not a not approve any specific development plan or change in zoning. City Council approval of the guide creation allows a proposed district election, including the oppose imposition of a an assessment. Proponents of the district are planning to hold the required election in November as well. Based on the present information, the Department of Finance recommends approval of the creation of the General Improvement District and its initial members of the Advisory Board of Directors. Thank you and happy to answer any questions as well for the jetty.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Secretary. How many speakers do we have this evening?
Speaker 1: Eight.
Speaker 6: We have a.
Speaker 5: Okay, we have eight speakers, so I will announce our first six and if you can come forward our first five and Elizabeth, Jason Winkler, Jonathan Kaplan, Andy Mountain and Brian six. Yeah. If you can sit in the front row. That would be helpful. Okay. If you can make room for the rest of the speakers. All right, everybody in there. Okay. And Elizabeth.
Speaker 12: I'm an Elizabeth. Globeville was an extended family and lived in Swansea, all of which are taking care of me as I go into a healthier life that will activate me as an artist, I'm happy to say. And this perfect confusion about me speaking before is that I had signed up for the Geordie thinking I had signed up for the bid because I am in very strong support of it and the guide is very much the completion to me of the picture of how what the folks in Rhino are doing is inspiring and actually strengthening similar efforts of the cluster of neighborhoods surrounding the Rhino District. And one of the most wonderful things we're able to say out in the planning process is we work on the the continuation of the legacy that this council has started by putting neighborhood plan planners in the neighborhoods like Little Village in Swansea is Rhino has done it right and they have established a sequence of events that give city council and our city government the ability to provide the funding mechanisms and the prioritization so that we can support the entrepreneurial spirit of the folks that are really going to create the sustainable economy for us in these neighborhoods, which is ourselves and those that inspire us by invest, investing locally into the neighborhoods and working together with each other. And I can say that we're seeing partnerships between people that are creative people and that are business minded people in Elyria, Swansea and Globeville in particular are starting to know more people in Reno that can partner up in technical areas and in mentoring and business and that kind of a thing. So the relationship between the investors and the communities that is showing up in the in the GEDI and the bid is extremely exciting and very reassuring. One of the in particular I want to thank in Hayes for showing up at our neighborhood planning processes from Westfield. And there's a very important juncture there in Brighton Boulevard. So just as a person out in the mix doing what I can to make my way and meeting the context of creative neighborhoods, folks that transcend economic cycles through entrepreneurial courage and who sustain efforts over long political calendars, many people are very grateful, and I think we're all going to be learning a lot how to move together as diverse neighborhoods, too. And the solution to gentrification is really increase and diversify the income house to house to house to house, generation to generation to generation so people can stay in their neighborhoods and stay in the weave of their their family legacy. And with the advent of the artisan economy, local economy, there is nothing better than what we're seeing happening between the combination of the good, the bad, working with the city planning department and helping us strengthen the economy so we can work very dynamically with the larger projects like the the overview projects in the quarter, like the stock show and the I-70 dilemmas and how do we create the connectivity among. And it's a very wonderful process. So thanks to this council, thanks for staying in there and thanks for the folks that started with just your creativity. And here you are and there's a lot of people they're going to benefit from this. So full support.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Jason Winkler.
Speaker 4: Good evening, members of Council. Thanks so much for having us here tonight and thanks for everything you guys do. It's truly an honor and a pleasure to do what we get to do here. I'm Jason Winkler, and I'm a resident of Denver and also a landowner on a handful of parcels in Rhino Hammon Eastside around a West Sider. So none of that none of that really bothers me, whether we're talking about the disparity. But I do on that point think that it's going to be handled very well. The idea, of course, as a west side or west side piece of of Reno and kind of echoing what Councilman Burke spoke about and all the people flooding into Reno and doing great and.
Speaker 0: Fun and exciting things that it really is there.
Speaker 4: To provide the infrastructure, maybe the less exciting and the less sexy, you know, piece compared to the bad. But we need some place to walk. We need some place to bike. And from a safety perspective and from an economic driver perspective, the guide is there to sit beside the commitments made by the city and county of Denver , specifically to make the Brighton Boulevard corridor great. And then we as landowners want to come in behind, behind what the city and county are here to do and make kind of the edges of what the city's going to do. Great. And that's being done kind of as a one time thing. And it's really to prevent what we call Brighton Boulevard Frogger, which is you have to go one side and then cross over and then go the other side and not get hit by traffic and cross over. So if we didn't do things by way of a guide like this and all the landowners come together, which we do really uniquely in Reno.
Speaker 0: You would have a patchwork.
Speaker 4: Of of of infrastructure improvements in this guide. Most specifically lets us do it all at once in a concerted effort. And it's more.
Speaker 0: Efficient.
Speaker 4: It's more effective, has a better end result, and it eliminates Brighton Boulevard Frogger. So and that's that's at least one of my big drivers. So and thank you. And we really appreciate your support.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Jonathan Kaplan.
Speaker 0: I want to thank counsel for this opportunity to speak. My name is Jonathan Kaplan and I own some passes on Brighton Boulevard and directly behind with my wife Dorothy are some parcels on wine coop. Also on the Reno board, the UIC board, boards of boards, the bridge over the Platte Working Committee, the gift board. Now. This is a great opportunity for us. And I want to thank all the rhinos for being here. And I want to thank Mayor Hancock, especially for the line item in the budget for Brighton Boulevard. What the gift is, is an extension of a form of a public private partnership. Residents can maintain a degree of control and we can guide how the neighborhood looks, sees and feels. The grid also equalizes a perceived inequity with all the money that's being driven towards Brighton Boulevard. The GID. Now, those of us that live on Brighton Boulevard will tax ourselves additional amount of money so that we can maintain Brighton Boulevard . And the big picture here and it's not about individuals, what what it's really about is building community and, you know, communities. Micky once said Communities grow organically. Well, the GED is a way to help that growth continue. Reno has grown considerably over time, and it's the hard work, the tireless work of all the individuals that have made it happen. It's you know, it's the residents directing. As the community grows, it allows us to implement improvements such as wayfinding signage, bike racks, bike lanes, everything that the city has started. This city's given us a great opportunity here with the money for Brighton Boulevard. So those of us who live on Brighton Boulevard now are going to pay a little more so we can get a lot more because it's a real big picture and the GID will enable connectivity and it equalizes any inequities that may be perceived by the East Siders versus the West Siders. It's all about community and it's really about art. And without the arts district, we wouldn't have the GID, we wouldn't have the bid. And I want to thank Tracey and all the class of rhinos that have come out tonight to support this. And Judy, thank you for your support and counsel. Thank you for your support.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Our next speaker is Andy Mountain.
Speaker 4: Good evening, counsel. My name is Andy Mountain. I'm a resident of Denver, and I'm a principal with GBC, a consulting firm based here downtown. I've led communications and engagement efforts for a few handfuls of projects within Reno in the last decade or so. And it's given me a unique perspective on kind of the intersection of private sector interests and public sector plans, and really how that plays a role in shaping this dynamic neighborhood specifically. I wanted to come in tonight just to speak with you about the proposed Rhino Guide and encourage your approval of it. It exemplifies the kind of collaborative spirit and public private partnership that can serve as a model for other infrastructure projects throughout the city. Brighton Boulevard has long been a lightning rod of conflict in Rhino. There have been as many visions for the quarter as there are uses served by it. And when I first began work on Brighton in 2013, the city and local community were at a stalemate conflict primarily focused on detailed cross-sections. And typically we had individuals fighting over feet. How many feet should be dedicated to what nobody was pulling up and seeing the bigger vision that really stood in the way of progress. So what we did was we initiated a visioning effort for Brighton, figuring out a way for it to serve as the main street for Rhino while continuing to serve the diverse array of uses. We've touched on already everything from 18 wheelers and busses down to pedestrians and bicyclists, you name it. The result of that visioning effort was not one silver bullet design. It was a design that was adaptive and dynamic, just like this quarter is. Over the last year, you've heard from the rhino stakeholders that have banded together to define what they want, the future of their neighborhood to be specific to Brighton Boulevard. What this guide does is they've worked hand in glove with city staff sitting across the table from one another, working together to figure out how they can use the city's investment as a springboard from which they can invest their own funds to advance their own neighborhood. With the Rhino Guide, the neighborhood wins. They get an enhanced corridor. They get kind of help in designing it and investing in it. And they also get the structure and ongoing financing that they need to continue making similar improvements. With the Rhino Guide, the city wins. They get an enhanced and more vibrant and artistic, almost industrial artistic gateway into downtown, and they also gain a true neighborhood partner. One of the things that we've seen as the conflict has begun to be replaced by real collaboration and real spirit together. So really, over the last decade, I mean, this transition, you know, the neighborhood's gone from three kind of geographically disparate communities, almost tri sector, if you will, by railroad tracks. We got East Side, West Side. But there's also the river that serves as a barrier in this community. This guide effort has begun to bring folks together. So I encourage your support. This has been a tremendous effort and I'm honored to have been a part of it.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Brian speaks.
Speaker 4: Members of.
Speaker 0: Council. Thank you for having us. I have a pretty short script.
Speaker 4: My name is Brian Sleeps. I'm with Great Divide Brewing Company.
Speaker 0: I have a pretty short script, so I just want to go off of that script for.
Speaker 4: Just a second and speak to a comment I heard earlier regarding the possibility of commercially assessed property today being developed into residentially assessed property which would then leave commercial property owners holding the bag. That bag would be the same size as it is today. And and I assume that's correct in that the election question is written such that the mill levy that's assessed on commercial property owners is set at a ceiling.
Speaker 0: So now I'll go back to my script again.
Speaker 4: Brian sleeps with great divide. We owned just over five acres of a of commercially assessed property along Brighton Boulevard. And with that said, we fully support the creation of a general improvement district and we would ask council to do the same. I have witnessed firsthand a very organized and collaborative.
Speaker 0: Public private partnership thus far, and I'm excited to.
Speaker 4: See the reconstruction of Brighton Boulevard get underway. The the General Improvement District would give us a unique opportunity to work with the city to retain the character of Rhino by funding enhancements to that project. It would also allow for future projects that would continue to make our neighborhood a great place to work, live and play. So again, thank you for your time and hope that you support this general improvement district. Like most of the residents and and business owners and commercial property owners in our in our district. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Justin Cross.
Speaker 4: Members of council. I'll keep the short since I was up here already. But I just want to talk about the Guild and specifically the fact that we didn't set out to form a guide. We set out to form a bid, and then the investment, which we are very thankful for. And Bright and Boulevard came about and there was this idea of how do we contribute to that and basically turn it into a truly living street because of the concerns about potentially there being funds in an in transparent way, going towards infrastructure on the West Side and more towards soft costs on the east side. There was actually a decision by the bid board to explore creating a separate district specifically to function on to function as the entity to fund infrastructure improvements on the West Side. So I just want to talk a little bit about how that process or say that's how that process went. The idea for the guide. I think that we're so excited about is the funding for Brighton Boulevard is going to go primarily towards concrete, which in a lot of ways is great. We're really excited about having a separated bike lane other than this one right out here. It'll be the first vertically separated bike lane in the city and making Brighton a truly multimodal street and making it a real place. And I think that's what's so exciting to all of us is it's it is it will always be a gateway. It'll always be a thruway. But what makes a great gateway as a true place and really allowing cyclists, pedestrians and people of all modes to be able to walk down Brighton Boulevard and visit. The different things that are happening on that street are so important long term. The the goal of the guide really is to continue to fund other projects in the neighborhood. The big one is the river and we think that the river is probably our greatest asset on the west side of the tracks and it's been abandoned and overused and really treated like a sewer for most of Denver's history, especially in that neighborhood. And how do we as a neighborhood really stand up, really on behalf of the river and say, this is important to us, we want to reclaim this for this community? The GID, after funding the Brighton Boulevard improvements gives us the ability to do that over time and have a separate funding mechanism that really focuses on the area around the river and improvements associated with the river. So I just want to say thank you for your consideration. We are excited about this district, really looking forward to talk about specific projects and actually potentially looking and encouraging the East Side to actually sign up for it as well in the future because of the significant infrastructure needs related to drainage and one way streets on that site. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Jason. Rick Krohn.
Speaker 0: Evening, Rick. Crown Attorney Spencer Fein here representing the proponents. And here just to answer questions, I.
Speaker 9: Think they've covered it very well. Don't really need.
Speaker 0: To add anything. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And Jamie Lythgoe.
Speaker 11: And Jamie go Centro again, consultant on the guide creation process. So just here to answer questions, anything related to the process or the operating plan?
Speaker 5: Thank you. Members of council. That includes our speakers. Are there questions from my colleagues? Councilman Ortega, I would like to ask Jamie if you would come to the microphone. So this stretches all the way to I-70, correct?
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 5: So how have large businesses like Pepsi been involved in the conversation and are they on board?
Speaker 11: Straight answers, yes. Pretty much every all those major landowners all up and down Brighton Boulevard did sign the petition of support. Our engagement for the process was nothing short of a labor intensive process, and this group has talked about the collaboration of how that came about. A lot of it driven by design and a lot of it driven by the big question of how are we going to make this work structurally from an organizational funding point of view, how does how do we make it all work? So beginning, I think sometime in mid-November and leading really through February, March time frame, when we actually went to petition, there was a group of property owners, including, as you said, Pepsi and others who were meeting literally every other week on a monday morning for 2 hours, sitting down, working through design, working through assessment methods, working through how we make this financially work for everybody without it being too much of a burden. So the guide was extremely labor intensive and collaborative process in that regard, and the demonstration of support we received and the petitions of support demonstrate that from all the major property owners, not only on Brighton but within the broader GEDI area as well.
Speaker 5: So my next question is about the fact that historically the city has looked at non-profits a little bit differently. I know that along this corridor we have the 40 museum. I think they're a nonprofit, are they not? They so.
Speaker 11: They are actually they have.
Speaker 1: A.
Speaker 11: Majority of them, a majority exemption, but they are do have a partial commercial exemption for part of their business. And they also did sign a petition of support for both the Biden.
Speaker 5: Okay. It all the questions. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Forgive me if I missed this, but how many mills is this? Levy? I thought I heard eight for the first four. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Are there other questions? No. The public hearing is closed. I made my comments earlier. The thing that I would just like to hammer home is that allowing for this general improvement district to pass complements the Business Improvement District. And after hearing what Justin Crawford talked about how the board had decided that this really was the way to go, I 100% support it. And I'm so excited again to see I mean, Rhino is just changed so quickly and even a year from now, I'm so excited to see what happens. So I will be supporting this and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Our next speaker, our next councilperson is Councilman Brooks, followed by Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. And I'll make this short, because I feel like I'm back in church a little bit with the heat, and I've said all of my comments, but I wanted to show my support and I did a fashion faux pas today and I wore my shorts.
Speaker 3: Some of us can see that.
Speaker 5: Councilman Brooks, can you stand up to the rest of us can see that.
Speaker 7: General, you get in this.
Speaker 1: Like Superman. I thought it was going to be chest hair.
Speaker 7: No, not chest hair or.
Speaker 5: Any other comments. Okay, Councilman Kennish.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I know regret chiming out so that Councilman Brooks could go first, because I've got nothing to follow that. But so, you know, in regards to probably both issues, but for this one in particular, I just wanted to say, you know, I often get asked what it's like to govern. And particularly when I talk to folks from other areas, I talk a lot about Colorado and Denver and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and how limited it seems like we are and how one of the things we end up doing is having these special districts that carry a lot of the infrastructure needs for our communities. And in in in many cases, you know, that's borne of a difficulty or it's borne of a challenge. But the one thing that I think that is a positive that comes out of it is it is actually creating a citizen led government in a way. What you are creating in this in this these actions is really taking ownership of your community, investing your dollars in having a direct say in how they're spent. And so I do think there's a beauty a little bit to that democratic way of of building your community. And so I want to just, you know, congratulate you. You've taken on a big responsibility, as we seem to be headed in the direction of passing this one as well from the comments so far. And, you know, to say that, you know, the values that you've shared in addition, I mean, we're talking about infrastructure here. But what I believe in is that the way that you build a community is is the way that you are treating and serving the people who will live, visit, spend time there. And so that I think if you think about the form following the function, you know, that's the responsibility you're taking on. And I think that the interest in, you know, touring truly keeping that to be an inclusive space. And so, you know, bikes is a really important piece. But how how do poor people interact with the community and continue to feel comfortable there? And and how do all of those pieces continue to come together? So I think that that flavor of rhino that you have is is, is, is about the people and how you make sure that that infrastructure matches the people is clearly a value that this group has. So with that, I want to lend my support once again to this measure and to say that I look forward to seeing the fruits of your labor as they come online. So thank.
Speaker 5: You. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennish. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 309 40.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 6: Can each.
Speaker 1: I layman I.
Speaker 6: Never.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 6: Ortega I Rob I Sheppard I Susman i brooks.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 5: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 5: Ten Eyes. Counsel Bill 309 has passed. Kelso MacInnis, will you please put Council Bill two of seven on the floor?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 212 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. I'm went ahead. Take that back. Council President. I move that council bill two seven be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 5: It's been moved and seconded. Council bills 207 and 212 approve zoning map amendments. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments, and council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home address is. The public hearing for Council Bill 207 is open. May we have the staff report?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an Ordinance concerning the organization and creation of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District in the City and County of Denver, creating the District Advisory Board and appointing the initial members thereof, and approving the initial Operating Plan therefore. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Approves the creation of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District, appointing the initial members of the Advisory Board of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District, and approving the initial Operating Plan and preliminary 2016 budget located in Council Districts 8 and 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 5-12-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06012015_15-0207
|
Speaker 11: Thank you, Madam President. Members of City Council. My name is Ryan Winterberg with Community Planning and Development. Here to present an application to rezone from pod 630 to C, C, C and 12 at 100 North St Paul Street and 149 North Steele Street. So the subject site is located within southeast central Denver in Council District ten and in the Cherry Creek Statistical neighborhood. To orient you a bit to the site here, we see it is bound by North Steele Street on the East First Avenue on the South and North St Paul Street on the west. It is within the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District and the Cherry Creek Shopping Center is directly across the street across First Avenue. The Cherry Creek Greenway and Pulaski Park are about a quarter of a mile to the south and the East First Avenue and North Steel Street corridor is served by six RTD bus routes. So the property is roughly 1.8 acres and it is comprised of two assessor's parcels. A Currently there is an eight story mixed use structure under construction at the site as well as a one story bank. The property owners are requesting a rezoning to facilitate the second phase of redevelopment, generally to increase the maximum permitted building heights. And it should be noted that PUD 630 always anticipated two phases of redevelopment, but the applicant's desired second phase is not permitted by PDE 630. So the request before you today is to rezone from PD 630 to C, C, C and 12. And consent has been received by both property owners within the PUD. So C CC and 12 stands for the Urban Center Neighborhood Context within Cherry Creek North and a 12 story maximum permitted building height. And as a refresher, the Cherry Creek North Zone districts were approved by city council in October of 2014 after a nearly two year process to draft customized zoning for Cherry Creek North, a direct recommendation of the Cherry Creek Area plan. And this application is the first owner initiated rezoning since the approval in the fall of 2014. So to orient you to the site a bit, if you've been here lately, you'll notice that it is a rapidly evolving context. The first phase of redevelopment, generally located at the 100 North Saint Paul Street site, is outlined in pink. It is the eight storey mixed use structure. It features ground floor retail and upper storey office. It also includes three levels of underground parking and a small surface parking lot access from North Steel. And it was reviewed and permitted under the entitlement of PDE 633. And the applicant has undergone a pretty substantial analysis of the development that's ongoing at that phase one compared against the proposed six and 12 zone districts, and has found that it substantially conforms with Section 12. So the area highlighted in green, this is the generally intended second phase of redevelopment at 149 North Steel Street. It features a temporary one story bank building there in the northeast corner, basically where that little red arrow is pointing you to. And upon completion of the first phase of redevelopment, that bank facility will move into the new building. And this green area is the proposed phase two redevelopment area, and the applicant intends to redevelop the site under the C 12 zone district should it be approved tonight. So before I dove into the standards a bit, I want to explain why the entirety of Pad 630 is before you tonight for rezoning. In December of 2014, we received a rezoning application to rezone generally the phase one area as outlined in blue and you see in this map out of 630 and into 1612. So whenever we receive a rezoning that involves a pad, CPD staff does a very thorough analysis of any remainder of the PD to see how the development would comply with the standards of that PD. And we did find that rezoning a portion of PD 630 and leaving a remainder would leave the remaining portion of 5630 non-conforming. And we do have a CPD policy not to support a rezoning that would leave a nonconforming PDS. And so we don't want to create any nonconformity. So based upon that analysis, the rezoning application was revised to rezone the entirety of 630. And we do find that it is a more logical application of zoning and avoids administrative challenges that could occur over time with the creation of a non-conforming party. To orient you to the existing zoning context in the area we see at the intersection of First and Steele several 12 storey zoned districts. We see some existing C CC and 12 zoning as well as TMX 12. We see the new mapping of the c ccn districts to the north moving into the business improvement district, generally decreasing in height, the further storey increasing in height. The further south you go towards the first steel corridor. We also see several pods along First Avenue, both within the Denver zoning code and the former Chapter 59. We see B three zoning to the south at the Cherry Creek Shopping Center and several C zone districts to the east along First Avenue, generally decreasing in height. The further east, you go away from the Business Improvement District. So to move you to the existing zoning, this is Bud 630 that currently applies to the subject site. It is a former Chapter 59. It was established in 2009 and always anticipated two phases of redevelopment. It permits a maximum height of ten storeys that's 145 feet and a maximum far across the entire site of 3.62 to 1. It also specifies parking and set back standards as well as some other design standards in the putty. I'd offer two options for a mix of permitted uses. The first option includes a retail service office and multiple dwelling units. The second option is retail service and office. So without that, the multi dwelling unit component and we can see here on the right this is the district plan excerpt from the PWD. It sets forth access standards as well as maximum building footprints. And I've highlighted for you in pink the phase one that's currently undergoing redevelopment. This is just really for your reference, it's not included within the putty. So the Cranmer curfew plan also applies to the subject site view plans protect and preserve panoramic views of the mountains from key locations throughout the city. And in this particular case, the Cranmer Park View Plan originates in Cranmer Park where you see the red dot are subject site is located at the Yellow Star and the view plan will specify maximum building heights for all structures, generally increasing in height. The farther you move away from the origin point of the view plane and at our particular site, the maximum building heights will be 158 to 161 feet across the site. The Design Standards and guidelines for Cherry Creek North also applied to the subject site. They guide site design, building design signs and streetscapes and the design standards and guidelines also specify a review by the Cherry Creek North Design Advisory Board who would make a recommendation to the zoning administrator for final approval. And these design standards and guidelines would apply regardless of the rezoning tonight. So moving on to existing land use, was there a subject site outlined in yellow? It is commercial retail. Then moving north, we see the Cherry Creek Shopping District mixture of mixed uses, retail and office. And to the south we see the Cherry Creek Shopping Center and you'll also notice multi-family and single family development in the northeast portion of your map moving farther away from the Business Improvement District into Cherry Creek East. So the existing context. So the building form and scale of our subject site, if you've been to the subject site, you'll notice that it is nearing completion. The photo that's in the upper right hand corner is taken from the northeast portion of the PD looking south. You can see in the foreground that said one story, temporary bank building that upon completion of the new building, that bank facility will move into the new eight story building and that will be the subject site of the phase two redevelopment. You can see the photo in the bottom is taken from the southern portion of the PD looking north. So you see the eight story building that is substantially complete. And in the lower right hand corner of that photo, you notice a small Wells Fargo structure. It is not included in today's rezoning. It is already zoned C 12. Moving into building foreman scale in the surrounding area. You see the photo in the upper right hand corner is very indicative of the Cherry Creek North Shopping District. We see pedestrian oriented buildings, high transparency. Then the photo in the lower right hand corner is the evolving context that we see at the first and steel intersection with the construction of 212 storey mixed use structures. Then moving to the south, we see the Cherry Creek Shopping Center with a surface parking lot located in between the building in the street and then in the northeast corner we see an eight storey office building that features ground story retail. Generally, we see higher intensity both in height and uses located at the first in steel corridor. There's a mixture of building heights within the shopping district, but generally heights will decrease the farther you move away from first and steel. So in terms of public process, we notified the following nine registered neighborhood organizations of completed application and then at every public hearing along the way. And for the communication that we have received today, we received a letter of support from the Cherry Creek East Association. We received a letter of support and an R.A. position statement from the Cherry Creek Area Business Alliance. Cherry Creek North submitted an email indicating that the R.A. voted in non opposition in response to an applicant statement of intent. And that statement of intent is included in your application package. Country Club Historic Neighborhood Association also submitted a letter indicating there are no vote of non opposition. And just today we received an email from Polley reads, a resident of Cherry Creek North. So it's not included in your staff packet. But she did write in opposition to the rezoning request, generally citing concerns over impacts from construction and loss of character in Cherry Creek. So in terms of process, since we did receive two applications at the site, we notified R.A. and City Council on December 26 and February 3rd. On April 1st, planning board recommended unanimous approval of the rezoning. On April 15, the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee unanimously move the bill out of committee. On May 11th, we notified R.A. and City Council of today's public hearing and signage has been properly posted on the property and June 4th at first. Sidney, of course, we are here today at the city council public hearing for ultimate approval. So now moving into the five criteria in the Denver zoning code that CPD uses to evaluate a rezoning, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. And there are three adopted plans that apply to the subject site. The first is comprehensive plan, and CPD found that the rezoning request is consistent comprehensive plan 2000. And we look to a number of strategies to inform that determination, including the promotion of mixed use development at key and appropriate locations. Moving on to Blueprint Denver, we see our subject site is located in this purple area, which is indicated as a regional center concept land use, which is intended to include a balance of retail, employment and residential. Blueprint Denver also recognizes that many regional centers began as a regional shopping center, but does acknowledge that a synergistic mix of uses is important to support that regional center. And the hatch indicates that the subject site is also located within an area of change. And these are areas that blueprint Denver recommends channeling the most growth and redevelopment to. Blueprint. Denver also sets out a number of street classifications that inform land use. The first in steel corridor is a mixed use arterial intended for high intensity mix of uses. First in Steel Corridor is also called out as an enhanced transit corridor, and these are areas that blueprint. Denver recommends increasing ridership, improving efficiency and improving service. And primarily we would accomplish this through a mix of supportive uses, intensities and densities. Moving on to the Cherry Creek Area plan adopted in 2002. The plan includes framework strategies that would apply to the entire Cherry Creek area, as well as sub area strategies that apply to specific geographies . You can see our subject site outlined in red. It is located within an area of change and the Cherry Creek Area Plan acknowledges that for Cherry Creek to continue to grow and to be prosperous, it must be it must redevelop. And the bulk of this growth and redevelopment should occur within these areas of change, while protecting the largely residential areas of stability that you see outside of that hatched area. The Cherry Creek Area Plan also includes framework recommendations to concentrate higher intensity, mixed use buildings along multimodal streets and key intersections like first in steel. And the site is also called out as a key development opportunity within the plan. So moving on to sub area strategies. Our subject site is located within a regional center concept land use, where a mix of uses and compact development is desirable. The Cherry Creek Area Plan also recommends that building heights should range from 4 to 12 stories within the shopping district. And the subject site outlined in red is recommended for a 12 storey maximum building height at the node, a first in steel where we see a permitted higher building height. The Cherry Creek Area plan also makes recommendations for improving multimodal connectivity, including a couple that are actually going to be coming up for implementation quite soon, including the Spear Lead Sail Mobility Study and the redesign of the first in steel intersection. And these upcoming improvements support the rezoning to see CCN 12 through acknowledging the evolving transportation context on this particular corridor. So based upon the review of these adopted plans, CPD does find that the rezoning request is consistent. We also find that the rezoning will resorts result in the uniform application of the Zone District, and the rezoning furthers the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans and policies. Moving onto the fourth criteria that there be a justifying circumstance for the rezoning. As the application points out, the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage the redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character of the area. And CBD did find a number of change conditions that justify this particular rezoning. As stated in the application, the 12 storey redevelopment that is occurring at the first and still intersection is the realization of the Cherry Creek Area plans recommendations for a higher intensity node at that particular location. Additionally, to change conditions since the approval of PDE 630 and 2009 are the adoption of the Cherry Creek Area Plan in 2012, setting forth a new vision for the Cherry Creek area as well as the customized Cherry Creek North zoning that was adopted in 2014, a direct recommendation of the Cherry Creek Area Plan. Additionally, the upcoming East First Avenue and Steele intersection redesign that should be beginning later in 2015. And the Spirit lead style mobility study that the RFQ has just been released this week does recognize an evolving transportation context in the area and justifies the rezoning to seek. 12. So now moving on to neighborhood context, we find that the subject site is located within a prototypical urban center. So we do find it appropriate to rezone to his own district within the urban center context. And finally, zoned district purpose and intent. We find that the Cherry Creek North Zone districts are intended to promote and enhance pedestrian oriented environment. And they are designed for specific application in the Cherry Creek North Mixed Use Shopping District. Specifically, the Section 12 Zone District applies to Cherry Creek North mixed use shopping districts to areas or intersections served primarily by major arterial streets or a building scale of 1 to 12 stories as desire desired, which we do see reinforced in the Cherry Creek Area plan. So based upon CPD's review of the five criteria, we recommend approval of rezoning PD 632 C and 12. And the applicants are here this evening, if you have any questions for them, and I'd be happy to answer any questions as well. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. We have three speakers signed up to speak this evening. The first one is Randall Phelps. Second one is Paul Powers. And the third is that. Jessica, if you could, please. The up.
Speaker 9: Madam President. Council members. I'm Paul Powers. I have nothing to add to a very complete report, but I'm available for your questions as the applicant.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Powers. Mr. Phelps. Paul Powers.
Speaker 4: Randall Phelps can my horn. Same as Paul Bowers. Just available to answer questions.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Okay. That Tasker.
Speaker 0: Thad, Texas 4535.
Speaker 9: Julian Street.
Speaker 0: Denver. As I was riding my bike through Cherry Creek past this location today, I noticed.
Speaker 9: An overabundance.
Speaker 0: Of coffee shops, high end restaurants and clothiers to serve the rich. But of course, I saw no facilities for our least advantaged citizens. Often I've heard this council talk about the benefits of promoting diversity and promoting diversity in neighborhoods. I've heard the president pro tem talk about the concentration of homeless shelters in her district. This zoning change does.
Speaker 9: Nothing to promote.
Speaker 0: Diversity. In fact, it inhibits it. As we've heard throughout the evening tonight, this council isn't.
Speaker 9: Supposed.
Speaker 0: To giving tax dollars, lots of tax dollars.
Speaker 9: To rich people.
Speaker 0: In fact, tonight, among other things, you're giving money to people who want to build a hotel for the wealthy. I would simply suggest that you use the zoning code in a few of those dollars to incentivize.
Speaker 9: Developers like these.
Speaker 0: To build a similar hotel for those who have no housing in the Cherry Creek area. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I would like to ask the applicant if you can come to the microphone. So as we saw in the presentation that was done by Ryan, whenever. There are two options for the site. Either office with residential or retail office without residential. So have you determined what the specific use is going to be for the site?
Speaker 9: Yes, Councilmember. We plan to build for sale residential homes and will will build the retail as required under the zoning along Steel Street. So it'll be a small amount of retail, approximately 6000 square feet. But everything else on the steel street part of this project will be. Our intent is to build homes.
Speaker 5: Okay. So we're talking about high rise as opposed to single family homes, condos. Okay. And then your 6000 square feet of retail. I guess part of what I'm trying to get at is some of the parking needs that will serve and accommodate your tenants in the building. We know that this area is already very parking challenged. And so I'd like you to just address the parking issues in general. Yes. This development.
Speaker 9: We intend to exceed the. If the property is zoned to c cc and 12, we plan to exceed the parking requirement, which under that zoning is one per home. We will achieve in the neighborhood of 1.7. And we will have a per unit. Promise and we will accommodate the zoning requirement for the retail as well.
Speaker 5: Okay. Let me just see if I have any other questions. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. While the attendance tonight might belie it, there's still a good deal of angst and concern about the amount of construction and the intensity of development in Cherry Creek. So I do have a number of questions if people can just bear with me. In Ryan's presentation, she pointed out that the PUD, which was created at two in 2009 and actually, Ryan, this may be more of a question for Mr. Powers, but the maximum height in the PUD is 145 feet. Assuming that you go ahead and do the condo construction that you're contemplating, how high a building would that be?
Speaker 9: According to our research, the criminal park ordinance will be the governing ordinance, not the zoning, because it will be more restrictive than the zoning and. According to the staff report, I believe that it's somewhere around 158 feet.
Speaker 8: So you're planning to build to 158 feet so the condos would be taller than eight stories of office. Or maybe you didn't build all eight stories. I'm trying to work well.
Speaker 9: In a residential building, Councilwoman. They may be about equal. But the I would say that if if this property is re zoned, we would build both within the premier park ordinance and within the zoning and. Ms.. WINTERBERG could correct me if I'm wrong in stating this, but I believe the. Existing pod allows 145 feet plus an amount of ten or 12 feet for the. For ancillary equipment on top of the building.
Speaker 8: So do you know how tall the office building is?
Speaker 9: Yes, I do.
Speaker 8: What is it.
Speaker 9: With the mechanical equipment? Approximately 146 feet.
Speaker 8: Okay. So it's my hope that you don't see the office building because if you did 12 stories of office, it would be a good deal taller. But we're hoping for residential here.
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. How many units are you contemplating?
Speaker 9: Oh, between. 55 and 65.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 8: And could you talk a little bit about your time period or projected time period for construction?
Speaker 9: We believe construction won't start for a year to 18 months.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 8: And so given that sort of time period that it takes to get under construction, are you still pretty sure you'll be doing condos? Because a lot of the neighborhood letters reference. That is why I'm asking the.
Speaker 9: Well, we don't have a perfect crystal ball, councilwoman, but today we have sufficient commitments to finance condos and to insure them. And. You know all about the construction defects statute in Colorado. We believe that. Both the financing and the insurance will be there such that we're willing to. Risk the money to immediately design and engineer a condo building.
Speaker 8: Great. That's very helpful. And then on the outreach, you do have letters from neighborhood boards. Can you sort of talk about presentations? Did you where you presented this to get the input?
Speaker 9: Yes. I personally have presented to the Capital Hill United Neighborhood, Turkic East Turkic North, the Turkic Business Alliance Country Club neighborhood. And I hope I haven't missed some.
Speaker 8: But I think you presented to the steering committee.
Speaker 9: Yes, I did. Thank you.
Speaker 8: So so one of my particular questions is in all of those situations, because I was there for quite a few of your presentations, you were presenting either to a board or a zoning committee of the organization. Did you happen to present to the general population meeting of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association?
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 8: They didn't ask you to do that.
Speaker 9: I wasn't invited to speak only to the Chair Creek North Board.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 8: I'm almost done. Dave, my last question relates to Mr. Teske is testimony. If you do two condos, you will be expecting to meet the requirements of our inclusive inclusionary housing ordinance. Is that correct?
Speaker 9: Yes, we understand that.
Speaker 8: Yeah. And it may be off site.
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you so.
Speaker 9: Much. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb asked my question about the commitment to affordable units, which we haven't or any of our for sale projects that move forward. But I wanted to ask the question about the corner of First and Steel in terms of improvements. We've seen a lot of new development that has happened at that corner. So I don't know what contribution those developments were expected to play in in this role of trying to improve that corner, which anybody who drives through it knows that it's gridlock at all times. And when you talk about pedestrian friendly or pedestrian safety issues, I know that's a concern, especially for some of the seniors who live just on the east side of Steele Street in I can't remember the I think it's called the covered housing that has three high rise buildings. But can you just identify what is being proposed to happen at that corner and how not only this developer, but any of the others who were allowed to build were somehow contributing towards that?
Speaker 11: Thank you. The councilwoman. So, as I mentioned before, the first and still intersection redesign will begin later this year in 2015. In 2013 and 2014, our colleagues in Public Works undertook an evaluation study to look at that particular intersection, knowing that it was called out in the Cherry Creek Area Plan as a very key intersection both to connecting people to Cherry Creek and then localized mobility and understanding that it's also very challenged to your point. So the study did identify, I believe, 3 to 4 different alternatives and selected a preferred alternative. I believe the focus of that particular study was understanding that a lot of the turning movements of that particular intersection are underutilized. So how to make the best use of that existing right away to serve pedestrians as well as bicyclists and autos? So a preferred alternative was selected and will be beginning design services later in 2015 and then probably approach implementation through the Capital Improvements program. So that is a city initiated way that that particular intersection can be improved from a multi-modal perspective. And then as individual properties redevelopment redevelop excuse me, along this intersection and anywhere within Cherry Creek North, they would be held to the streets keeping and sidewalk standards of the business improvement district, which is generally going to be heightened and have a broader sidewalk as well as a tree lawn. So we do expect to see design and hopefully implementation very soon of that intersection improvement.
Speaker 5: Though, given that this started in 2012 and 2013, what expectations did the city have in asking the different property owners who were developing on those various corners to contribute towards either through right of way or financially or whatever towards those improvements?
Speaker 11: Fred, I can't speak to the design process, so I wasn't involved in it, unfortunately. But I know that the selection of the preferred alternatives, as well as the vetting of all of the alternatives in that study, was a very collaborative process with the adjacent property owners knowing that there could be some changes in access as well as right of way acquisition or redesign. So I know that the preferred alternative was selected very collaboratively. I'm afraid I can't speak to any future right of way dedications, though that may be required. I believe it will utilize the existing right of way though, so I don't believe any existing dedication.
Speaker 5: I would like to ask Paul if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone if you have been asked to contribute any right of way to address part of the configuration of whatever proposed changes are to this intersection or financially, if you've been asked to contribute towards that.
Speaker 9: With respect to the Steel Strait development that we contemplate. Our property isn't on the corner of First and Steel. It's mid-block. Okay. So the answer is no.
Speaker 5: Okay. So the question would then be for any of those property owners who are on that corner, because it seems like we let that development go forward and now we're going to go change the reconfiguration of that intersection. And we should have been more thoughtful in looking at that upfront in terms of whether or not right away was needed to address, you know, the improvements that we're going to want to be doing. And it just sort of seems kind of backwards to be, you know, asking that we do that sort of after most of that major development has taken place where most of those buildings are now really right on the you know, on the lot line, if you will.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I did actually just pull up the image of the preferred alternative. It's it's known as alternative to a in that first in steel evaluation study. And it does appear that it utilizes the majority of the existing right of way, but that it may include some existing dedications of some pedestrian islands, as well as a wider sidewalk on the east side of the the intersection of steel. And first, so I know that will be a conversation when it comes to the upcoming design of that particular improvement.
Speaker 5: I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilman Rob, did you have.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I did have a few in. I really want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for her line of questioning on that. But just a few pieces. There was no desire on the part of the community to widen First Avenue or steel because it's hard enough for pedestrians to cross the developer on the south.
Speaker 1: East.
Speaker 8: Corner that's Steel Creek. The building complete when people are moving in was asked to build. I don't know if I'd call it a pedestrian median, but a median and East First Avenue so that cars couldn't cross out of the alley between Adams and Steel. So he did make an investment in the street. And I'm not wishing bad news for Mr. Powers, but when this project is designed and goes through all this site planning, I know one of the features of the Steel Street intersection extends the island at Saint Paul, which is very in First Avenue, which has very minimal. Waiting space. If someone is crossing there with a stroller, for instance, and can't get all the way, we couldn't lengthen the time at that intersection as we could at other intersections in Cherry Creek and have done recently. So that's the one intersection where we need more resting space. As far back as Bill Bill, I was out there looking at that. And finally, one of the things that I do like and I guess these are sort of comments, but they're in response to questions. I believe that Paul's core has an extra set back so that there can be a little more space from First Avenue for the pedestrian along the property that's already built. Actually, this sits down the block, not exactly on First Avenue. So with that said, that's all I.
Speaker 5: Know. Thank you. Councilman Rob, are there any other comments from council members? The public hearing is closed. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 207.
Speaker 8: We do. In comments.
Speaker 5: Comment. Oh, we are. Councilman Rob?
Speaker 8: Well, actually, I probably could have gone without comments, but I just feel that duty. I hope there's one down there. The neighborhoods have basically taken a position of non opposition to this, but I do not think and this is no fault of the police corp, but the outreach wasn't quite as extensive, possibly because of plans in place . And most people know what the plan says now and the 12 stories are allowed. I think some of my some of my constituents will be happy to know that there's not more construction tomorrow in Cherry Creek because we're pretty construction exhausted, though. There will be things coming up in a year, year and a half as well. Probably in my way. And there really. This really pretty much meets the plan, which is why I think we see this the I think some of the support came because the plan, even though it's not mandated in the zoning, is for the condos , which generates less traffic, fewer parking problems in the area. And so those were important to people. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: It's a thank you, Madam President. It's our custom when we have someone who served in office to say hello. So the Honorable Paul Powers, we welcome you into these chambers after we ask you some questions, but is one to welcome you. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 5: Okay. A few comments. Okay. The public hearing is closed. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 207.
Speaker 6: Can each i layman i. Nevett i.
Speaker 5: Ortega I.
Speaker 6: Rob I. Sheppard, i.
Speaker 5: Susman, i.
Speaker 6: Brooks.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 5: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Please.
Speaker 6: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 5: Ten Eyes. Counselor Bill 207 has passed. Councilwoman, can you please put Council Bill 212 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 212 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 5: They need a second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council 212 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. Councilwoman or President Pro Tem Monteiro. Good evening. It's been a long evening. My name is Steven Chester, senior city planner with CPD here to present the staff report on 1292 1292 King Street PD 5732 JIMMU five.
|
Bill
|
Rezones 100 N. St. Paul Street and 149 N. Steele Street from PUD 630 to C-CCN-12 in Council District 10. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 100 N. St. Paul Street and 149 N. Steele Street from PUD 630 to C-CCN-12 (Cherry Creek North, 12 stories) in Council District 10. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-15-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06012015_15-0212
|
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. Councilwoman or President Pro Tem Monteiro. Good evening. It's been a long evening. My name is Steven Chester, senior city planner with CPD here to present the staff report on 1292 1292 King Street PD 5732 JIMMU five. Here we are in West Denver, located within Council District one in the West Colfax neighborhood. The subject's site is directly south of 13th Avenue at the intersection of 13th and King Street. Also located directly north of the Knox Court Light Rail Station. Property is about 9.2 acres currently on the site as a single storey residential office type building, along with a three story shelter for women. The property owners are requesting rezoning due to the overly restrictive constraints on the current property due to the former Chapter 59 pad. They're hoping to redevelop this site along with the neighboring site, but they are back and can speak more about their plans for redevelopment. It's also important to remind you that approval of rezoning is not an approval of a proposed specific development project. So the request is for GMU five star general Urban Neighborhood Context Multiple Unit five story max. We'll walk you through the existing context, starting with the zoning in the area. It's a mixture of GMU five and three. The actual transit corridor is zoned E2. You see, that's left over from when this entire area was zoned. R two Prior to then, the new zoning code. There's some open space they could Gulch and Sanchez Park in the area which is zoned OSA. There's a quite a bit of u03, the use overlay three, which is a use overlay for a restrictive set of commercial uses in existing historic buildings. And then the current site or the site that's currently zoned PD 573. So they said it's a former Chapter 59 PD that's restricted to the building forms that are currently on the site or uses under AMI 30. The existing context pertain to land use is a mixture of single family and multi-family residential housing, with some scattered civic uses in the area, along with the transit corridor and the open space of Lakewood Gulch. Here's a picture of the subject site. This is that the shelter that I spoke of before. It takes use of the topography of the site. It's kind of a strange looking building, but and it's reached the end of its kind of useful life. Thus the rezoning. To the north is a Denver housing authority development. It's a mixture of two and three story buildings. As seen on the screen. Directly east of the site is a townhome project and a also affordable housing project up on the Hill. Their mixture of two and three stories and the largest building in the area is directly west of the site. It's a six story building also owned by Denver Housing Authority. The process to date in terms of public outreach. All the Arnaud's notified this application where the West Colfax Association of Neighbors Salons like Citizens Group, I.N.S. and the Denver Neighborhood Association. To date we received a letter of support from WECAN, along with a letter from the salons like Group. They do not take official positions on rezonings. However, I've been supportive of the public outreach process. We received a complete application on February 11th and April 1st, received a 9 to 0 recommendation from Planning Board. On April 15th, the case was moved out of Neighborhoods and Planning Committee. On May 11th, all the property was posted of notification of this public hearing. And here we are today. On June 1st, we'll walk you through the review criteria for this rezoning, starting with consistency. With adopted plans, there's three adopted plans pertaining to the site plan blueprint, Denver and the West Colfax plan. For the current plan, there's a number of strategies which support the rezoning, speaking to promoting infill development, increasing a diverse range of housing types, promoting infill development along with promoting transit oriented development, providing mixed income housing, especially along transit lines as well. CBD finds that this rezoning is consistent with the current plan. Moving on to Blueprint Denver the land use concept for the site is urban residential. Urban residential is a higher density primary residential land use with mid to high rise structures providing a mixture of housing types. It's also designated an area of change in Blueprint. Denver Areas of change are where we like to channel growth within the city in order to improve access to jobs, housing and services providing fewer and shorter auto trips. This application is consistent with the Blueprint Denver land use concept in terms of street classification. Knox Court is a residential collector. 13th and King Street are both on destiny local streets. Through this sudden here. This speaks to the recently completed two D strategic plan for the city. The Knox court station is identified as a urban station. In our 2D typology, urban stations are provide some small scale, mid-rise multi-family residential in nature with consistent moderate setbacks and a balance of pedestrian bike and vehicle use. This is done to reflect the kind of really neighborhood focus of the Knox Court and Paris stations there. They serve as walk up stations, not necessarily the highest intensity, highest density, two d that you see at some of our urban centers. Moving on to the West Colfax Neighborhood Plan, which was adopted in 2005. On this map here, you can see that the subject site has been designated. Urban residents are an urban neighborhood station. Land use. The urban neighborhood station district is a variable, compact and dense development pattern. Typically 1 to 5 stories of single family and multifamily residential uses. Development is encouraged to make to take into account for underutilized parcels and dated and declining properties. Some more significant and welcome redevelopment may occur, adding small and medium scale apartments or condo buildings in close proximity to the station area. CPD finds that this rezoning is consistent with the current plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and the West Colfax Neighborhood Plan for the next two review criteria Uniformity of district regulations and Furthering the public health, safety and welfare have also been met due to the adopt or the furthering of the city's adopted city plans. Moving on to justified circumstances of 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 to recognize the changed or changed character of the area. Some of those indicators of change or the area of change plan, direction and blueprint. Denver The adoption of the West Colfax Plan, the opening of the West Rail Line, along with just general increased development activity along our transit corridors. The last review criteria consistency with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. In terms of neighborhood context, the general urban neighborhood context is made up of multi-unit buildings, primarily residential uses in a variety of building forms, moderate to high scale residential buildings, and a balance of of pedestrian bicycle and vehicle mobility. CBRE finds that this rezoning is consistent in that neighborhood context. Moving on to zoned district purpose in intent. The purpose and intent of this in district is to promote and protect higher density residential neighborhoods, promote safe and active, pedestrian scaled residential areas, and allowing for a multi-unit district with a variety of residential building forms. With that, CPD recommends approval based on funding. All of the review criteria have been met. We also have the applicants here today who can answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. We have five speakers tonight. The first one is Turnell Curtis. Second is Richard Taaffe, Cindy Harvey, Adam Kantor and Carol McLennan.
Speaker 1: Madam President, pro tem council members, thank you for your time on a nice late night. I'm Terrell Curtis. I'm a resident of East Hill in Denver, and I'm the executive director at the Dolores Project. We are the property owner in question. We are seeking the rezone in order to fit, as the staff report showed, fit within the context of newer zoning plans that Council has adopted. It also facilitates future redevelopment of our site that I can answer more questions about if that's of interest. But we are eager to be able to preserve affordable housing in this very quickly changing neighborhood in West Colfax, and also to remain in context with the existing neighborhood of multi-family housing, affordable housing and especially very low income housing. We do seek we will be seeking to redevelop our site in order to add a multi multi income housing, particularly 0 to 30% AMI housing that will be permanent supportive housing for people who've been chronically homeless with a disability, as well as units of workforce housing at 40 to 50% ami. With that. I'll leave it at that. I suspect there may be questions and I'm here.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you, Richard Taft.
Speaker 0: Madam President Pro-Tem. Council members, thank you for your time. My comments are very brief. I'm Dick Taft. I'm president of Rocky Mountain Communities. We're a nonprofit, affordable housing organization in the city of Denver. We provide affordable housing for families across the state of Colorado. We are very happy to be in this partnership with the Dolores project because it affords us the opportunity to provide a continuum of affordable housing at a site that is a TOD site right on the Knox Court station. It includes replacement of shelter beds. It includes inclusion, a development of new 35 units of permanent supportive housing, and takes 27 units of affordable housing and turns them into another 75 units. So. We're very happy to do this because this is the type of project that is of scale for affordable housing that this city and this and frankly, the state of Colorado so desperately needs.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Cindy. Harvey.
Speaker 1: Thank you, council members. My name is Cindy Harvey. I'm with Kepler Community Planning Architecture. We're the architecture and planning firm for our applicants, and I'm here to answer any questions. I'll just put this brief. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Adam. Cantor.
Speaker 4: My name is Adam Cantor. I'm also with Gephardt, and I'm just here to answer questions.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Adam.
Speaker 5: And our final speaker is Carol McLennan.
Speaker 6: Good evening, members of council. My name is Carol McLennan. I'm a Park Hill resident, but I'm also a property owner in the West Colfax neighborhood and our member of the Land Use Committee for the West Colfax Association of Neighbors. And I'm here tonight to express we can support for this project. As you know, we have sent a letter of support, but I wanted to let you know that the applicants provided a presentation to our general membership in April before the Planning Board hearing and.
Speaker 1: Unanimously voted to support this project. As you know, we.
Speaker 6: Can is very strongly supportive.
Speaker 1: Of a healthy, safe and sustainable.
Speaker 6: Neighborhood. And we felt this is very important to support our current neighbors. Who are the applicants in doing this work to keep our neighborhood very diverse?
Speaker 1: We hope you support it. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, applicants, I want to give you a chance to tell your story a little bit better. I think it was a little bit piecemeal there and a little bit difficult to understand. So I think one question that folks might have is whether the shelter continues to operate and then exactly how many how many units are being built and what is the breakdown between permanent supportive housing and the low income housing? And I think it would be also good to explain any relationship between the shelter and the other housing units. Yep. Thank you. Absolutely. The shelter will continue operating. The Dolores project has operated on this site for eight and a half years, providing shelter every night for at least 50 unaccompanied women and transgendered individuals. In the wintertime, that number does go up to 60 or 65 in total to accommodate the need during cold weather. The need certainly hasn't diminished in the last eight and a half years. We don't see it going away in the next several years that it will take to get this project off the ground. And so it is absolutely an essential component that the shelter continue operating. In the initial site planning, we've been able to develop a plan in which the shelter can actually continue in place during construction of a new shelter building that will include 35 units of permanent supportive housing above it. So those are housing units for 0 to 30% AMI for people who've been formerly homeless with a disability. The Delores Project would be providing the ongoing supportive services for those residents. In addition, we are we're maintaining independent ownership of our properties. But with the adjacent property of Rocky Mountain communities, we will be joining the land use and creating 75 units of affordable housing at 40 to 50% ami. One more question I think I missed. So just to connect all the dots, is this permanent supported, supportive housing for the clients of the shelter or is that open more broadly? It will definitely be open more broadly. I mean, we probably couldn't fill all 35. Right off the bat. But we the Dolores project is and always has been a very collaborative model and we're very much a part of the continuum of care with other shelter providers and homeless service providers. So we would be doing outreach to our provider network to ensure that those units are filled regularly with people in need. Wonderful. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council winner take care. Would you be able to identify whether or not there will be a change in the number of shelter beds?
Speaker 1: Mm. We don't intend to change the number of shelter beds given our model of service. There certainly has been interest in increasing the number of shelter beds. Given our model of service. Increasing above 50 is we don't feel we can provide effective services above that.
Speaker 5: And with the staffing that you currently have, you'll be serving more people that will be in the housing units. Support units.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'd be adding staffing. There will absolutely be at least one case management position added, probably another layer of program direction, and will be partnering with Rocky Mountain communities for the property management, which is an essential part of permanent supportive housing.
Speaker 5: Very essential. Can you speak to whether or not low income housing tax credits have been committed to the project yet? Have you? Not yet.
Speaker 1: Application We submitted an application for 4% bond credits and the state tax credits that we did not get allocated at this round. We anticipate going back again in January. We've got and really very clear and very positive feedback from Schaefer. So we're restructuring the project somewhat to address those needs, and we'll be going back in January or when those when that application to open again.
Speaker 5: Good luck with that. Thank you. Madam President, I just want to make one comment. I wish that that Tesco was here to see that we're actually working to support a project that does serve the population that he often speaks about.
Speaker 1: And we had the same conversation back here. Thanks.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman fights. I saw your name and then it disappeared. Did you have a comment?
Speaker 10: Councilman Shepherd. Councilwoman Sheperd asked my question.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Are there other comments? Those are questions de none. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilwoman Shephard.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Pro Tem. I'm very excited to support this project and I'm very glad to be able to say that I'm a big fan of both of these organizations and both of these leaders, and I'm really a fan of the work that you do for our community. And this is exactly what we need to be doing here. And. I'm glad that we're going to be able to provide the services for the sheltered women and then permanent supportive housing, as well as the low income units that are needed here. And I know that we have the right leadership and this zoning is very appropriate. And having been a fan of Delores Project for such a long time and having been in their building on multiple occasions, I can definitely speak to the need to upgrade the facilities because there's really important work happening there and I think you need a little bit more space. So and then of course, this is great that it's on the and I don't know why I'm so emotional, but this is important work and I'm really happy that it's on the light rail. I mean, like immediately adjacent to the light rail. I mean, you can literally I mean, I don't even know if it's like 100 steps or whatever from the front door currently, but it's it's right there. And so that is often been a difficulty, I think in our shelter system is how clients can actually access these things. So now we have to figure out, you know, how to get affordable fares for them so that they can actually come to the facilities. Because often people are coming from downtown and it's you know, as long as I've lived on the west side of our city, there's so many physical, literal, physical barriers to being able to get there from the downtown area. And I think it's a testament to how great the work is and how well you work with the community, that there's no opposition from the community. And this is an area of change and this is exactly where we should be building this type of facilities. And it's also been designated in our work with the inclusionary housing ordinance as a high need area for for our most vulnerable citizens. So I really do wish Mr. Tech was here tonight to hear this. So I'm an enthusiastic support, and I would hope that all my colleagues are as well.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilman Shepard. Councilwoman Ortega. Well, first, I want to thank Councilwoman Sheppard for her heartfelt comments. I was at the Denver Department of Human Services when this particular building was put out to bid for the use of a shelter. I wish there was a way in this process we would have been able to keep the location undisclosed because of the nature of the work that you do and the protection that is always at the forefront of ensuring that women's lives are being protected, that you all serve day in and day out. That being said, I. I'm pleased to support this. And the need is so great not just for the 0 to 30, but also for the 40 and 50% of the RMI that's been targeted to be served as well. And if I can write a letter of support to accommodate your request that goes into Shaffer, please let me know. Because, you know, those dollars are absolutely critical to low income housing projects. And like Councilwoman Shepherd, I enthusiastically support this moving forward and wish that we could have more and more of these across the city because the need is so great. Thank you for the work that you do. Thank you. President Ortega. Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. For the applicants, I think that what stands out is the innovation of this proposal and really thinking creatively beyond silos and really thinking creatively about the ways to maximize very scarce, very difficult dollars and to come up with a concept and to not be afraid to take on a zoning request, which we know is costly and very expensive. So and you know, the staff very thorough report in terms of how this fits into the neighborhood context. So I appreciate that. I thought it was really important, though. I so appreciated the West Colfax neighborhood representative Carolyn being here because I as an At-Large member, I try to go to as many meetings as possible about the siting of affordable housing and homeless housing. And I get asked from, you know, every single neighborhood, why us? Why is every service in our neighborhood? And there's so much concentration. And it's funny because there are seven or eight different neighborhoods who all think they are unique. And and it's it's very interesting to me because this area, as you showed in the map, isn't just a shelter provider. It's a public housing provider. And quite a few units spread across numerous buildings. We're not just talking about one building. You have not. And two, if I if I remember correctly, there are two separate nonprofit providers, then Rocky Mountain, and then there's another is Del Norte. Or I forget who the other owner is, but I don't know of any other part of the city that has quite that concentration of providers, you know, probably two or three block area. And yet we not only don't have a neighborhood full of opposition, we have a neighborhood with enthusiastic, unanimous support, which says a lot about this community and it says a lot about the way that these providers have clearly interacted with that community. And so I'm proud I'm proud to live in a city where there is a community and a group of housing providers where, you know, we may not, in retrospect, have wanted to concentrate people in that same way. Right. We probably would have built it a little more diversely from day one if we were starting over. But in spite of that, you know, lack of foresight 50, 40, 38 years ago, we are continuing to move forward with this commitment in the face of what we know. I mean, this is the thing about the map that Councilwoman Sheperd mentioned about the inclusionary housing ordinance. People are shocked when they hear that this is a high need area, but it's because of the gentrification that will come with the transit. And so that's why, especially those 40 and 50% of Army units are so important. So I feel very proud. I feel very proud of this community for achieving this approach, a very practical approach to a very human challenge of poverty and needs. So with that, it's a land use decision we make today. But just like I said before, right, infrastructure and land use pave the way for how people live their lives and whether they're included or whether they're not. So with that, I'm going to be supporting this tonight and I want to thank the neighborhood for coming out as well as the providers. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 212.
Speaker 6: Can each layman I? Nevitt Hi.
Speaker 5: Ortega Absolutely.
Speaker 6: Rob Shepherd I Susman I.
Speaker 1: Brooks I thought.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 5: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Ten Eyes and Eyes Council Bill 212 has passed. Congratulations. On Monday, June eight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 302 approving an amended and restated Ironworks Foundry Urban Redevelopment Plan. On Monday, June 22nd, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 312 approving a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code creating the Scottish Village Conservation Overlay, a required public hearing on Council Bill 313, changing the zoning classification for multiple properties, roughly bounded by 32nd Avenue, Clay Street, Dunkeld Place and Zuni Street. A required public hearing on Council Bill 319. Approving a text amendment to the zoning code creating the Potter Highland Conservation Overlay. A required public hearing on Council Bill 321. Changing the zoning classification for multiple properties, roughly bounded by 38th Avenue, Federal Boulevard, 32nd Avenue and Zuni Street. A required public hearing on Council Bill 322 approving a text amendment to the Denver zoning code, creating the side interior setback design overlay a required public hearing on Council Bill 323 Changing the zoning classification for multiple properties in the Highland Statistical neighborhood. A required public hearing on Council Bill 324 approving a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code, creating a new zoning district, the Campus National Western Center and a required public hearing on Council Bill 325. Changing the zoning classification for certain properties within the National Western Center campus located in North Denver in the Elyria neighborhood. Any protests against Council Bill 313 321, 323 or 325 must be filed with the council offices no later than Monday, June 15th. On Monday, June 29th, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 345, changing the zoning classification for approximately 99 Quebec Street. Any protests against Council Bill 345 must be filed with the Council offices no later than June 22nd. See no other business before this body? This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 0: Denver eight on TV and online to stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 1: You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source. And what?
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located at 1290-1292 King Street from PUD 573 to G-MU-5 (General Urban, Multi-Unit, 5 stories) in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 1290-1292 King Street from PUD 573 to G-MU-5 (General Urban, Multi-Unit, 5 stories) in Council District 1. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-15-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05182015_15-0320
|
Speaker 6: quality, cost effective services to the citizens of Denver. And. WHEREAS, Denver Public Works Services are an integral part of our residents everyday lives. With programs that include street sweeping, recycling, refuse collection, pothole repair and street paving. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works enhances the quality of life in our city by managing and maintaining public infrastructure, including city rights of way streets, alleys on street parking, drainage ways, sewers, bridges, traffic signals, street markings and signage, as well as contracting, procurement, cash sharing, and permitting programs that meet the needs of the public. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works continues to make significant contributions to our built environment managing the planning, design and construction of public infrastructure and new transportation options, including installing Denver's first protected bikeway and permitting the city's first on street public bike corrals. And. Whereas, as our city grows, Denver Public Works will focus. We'll work to accommodate more people with a strategic plan that focuses on smart growth. Smart being an acronym and making Denver more. And this is what it stands for sustainable, multimodal, attractive, resilient and transparent. And. Whereas, the Council specifically recognizes and congratulates the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year for 2014 for their achievements. Michael Lopez Capital Projects Management. Rudy Close with Finance and Administration. Dwain Fields and Fleet Management. Rachel Race Oh, we've got a popular one out there. Rachel Reyes Walsh with right of way enforcement and permitting Stephen for Vili Right of way services. Sarah Anderson with policy planning and Sustainability. Rosalia Vila Lobos Solid Waste Management. Larry Lovato with Street Maintenance. Rachel Bronson and Transportation. And Danny Lopez with 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 17 through May 23rd, 2015. As public works weaken Denver and congratulate the 2015 Public Works Employees of the Year and their outstanding contributions to the Department and the city. Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that copies hereof before added to Denver Public Works and the ten public works employees listed above.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 6: I move that we adopt proclamation number 320 series of 2015.
Speaker 0: The moved and seconded comments from members of Council Councilwoman Shepard.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. It's such a pleasure to be able to read this proclamation again this year. I am Chair of the Infrastructure and Culture Committee and Transportation Planning and all the work. The good work that we do in public works is really a specialty interest of mine, and a lot of people don't know this, but Public Works is the second biggest part of our city budget on an annual basis, just after the Public Safety Department and when it's working well, we don't hear much from the public, but we do hear when they're upset about things. But the great news is, is that every time that your trash is picked up or that your sewer works the way it's supposed to, or that you arrive on time and safely at work or at school or any other parts of your destination during the day. The reason that you got there or the reason that those things were achieved is because of the hard work of our second largest department in the city and county of Denver. I, I just can't speak highly enough for this department, and I think you guys are kind of the unsung heroes. So I'm really glad we're taking this time today to recognize all of the really hard and valuable work that you do to make this city work. And I travel a lot. I travel in the United States a lot, but I also travel, you know, in a fair number of developing countries. And I'm always really struck, by the way, if I. A contrast between the way our infrastructure works so well here in the United States and in Colorado specifically, as compared to some of the other cities and countries around the world that I have visited, which also have nice features as well. But perhaps things working on time correctly, safely and efficiently may not be some of those strengths in other areas of the world. So I'm very thankful for the work that you all do, and I'm especially proud of the growth that we have made in the last few years in terms of really promoting an agenda that helps promote safety for pedestrians and cyclists. In the work that we have made to push the boundaries in this area in Denver in the last few years is really great. And it's also been a big focus of many members of this council, as evidenced by our budget retreats in the last few years. So thank you all so much for all your work. And I'm sure that some of my colleagues might have some comments as well to make, but it's great to see you in chambers tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd. Any other comments? Proclamation 320. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to also weigh in and first of all, thank Councilwoman Shepherd for bringing this forward once again. I think it's vitally important to be able to recognize our city employees for the incredible work that is done day in and day out that keeps the city looking clean and great. I know the issue of filling those potholes continues to be a challenge, especially as we continue to have rain. But the work that's done of all of the different public works divisions, if you will, is is such an important part of the basic services that our public, our constituents come to expect. They believe that their taxpayer dollars pay for those services. And if it were not for all of you sitting in the audience today and your colleagues who make this work happen and ensuring that everything works the way it's supposed to, you know, when people's toilets flush, when they turn on the water, you know, our drainage systems throughout the city, through our tributaries, all of that is part of the work that our city employees do for us. And I just want to say a big thank you. Congratulations to the honorees. But congratulations to all of you for the work that you do every day. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Councilman Ortega. Councilman Devitt.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I will echo, but not repeat what my colleagues have said very eloquently. I just ask that whoever comes up to speak to the proclamation, I assume it'll be Manager Cornejo that he'll introduce these awardees individually. So we get a chance to thank them directly.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Nevitt. Councilwoman Montero.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to extend my congratulations to all of you for the for the general public. There are so many divisions that are within public works, for example, solid waste. I'm so happy that we have roll out barrels now and Globeville, O'Leary, Swansea and Nell on the Lincoln wants them. So that's something that Councilman Lopez will work on and wastewater and traffic management. And I'm sure that there's other divisions that I'm forgetting. But I just want to say that, as was mentioned earlier, many times, to keep things running smoothly, you don't hear from people and you don't hear them call and say, gee, you really did a good job today. I like the way my street sign looks or something. But the minute that someone hits a pothole or even the timing on the traffic lights, which I've called George Delaney on plenty of times. So it's one of it's so it's one of those divisions where, you know, we just hear from people when things are not when the trains aren't running on time. So I just want to say that I appreciate with all my heart all of the work that manager Carlo and the whole staff do every day, and that I am always thankful when everything is running smoothly and people are happy. So when people are happy, we won't hear from them. And so this is one night where we're able to celebrate and be able to just tell you thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Montero. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just wanted to say a quick thank you to all of you who are being honored. But also I think it's just a reflection of the department to reflection and leadership. When you look at basic city services and what our constituency is, city services, you are that face and you know that department accounts for so much of our budget, and rightfully so, especially in in a state where it snows one day, then it rains the hour later and then it's sunny. Right. It wreaks havoc on our infrastructure and it wreak havoc wreaks havoc on our budget as well to wreak havoc in offices. There's always a phone call that comes in from council offices to public works saying, can you fix this pothole that Paul? Can you get people out here? It doesn't just happen in a vacuum. These are hard working people. A lot of them who I know call Council District three home and it's their city. And there's nothing more gratifying than when you go out there and you see folks, for example, with street movements that are out there putting in new asphalt, blistering summer days, it's over 200 degrees with the asphalt, what they see coming out and to see them being able to work on streets that they grew up in really says something and it says something about the quality of work that's being done, the dedication of our employees to our city. So I you know, I wish I wish we can pass out. I don't know. How many employees do we have? A manager called Nine Public Works. We should name all of them one day on a proclamation and not necessarily read it, but list it. I'd be. It'd be interesting, but they all deserve it. Thank you very much. Those of you who are being honored.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilmember.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I just can't let this resolution go by noting that it honors two people from right away. Services, which is probably the part of public works in my office, calls most frequently whether it has to do with street occupancy permits in construction zones or closed sidewalks or parking. We talk to right away services almost on a daily basis, so I wanted to call it that division. All of you are very deserving. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb, in the comments. 3 to 0 c none. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Shepherd I Susman. Brooks. I thought.
Speaker 2: I Lehman. Hi. Lopez. Montero. Hi, Nevitt. Ortega. Hi, Rob. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting announced results.
Speaker 2: 1111.
Speaker 0: Eyes proclamation 320 has been adopted. Councilman Sheperd, is there someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 6: Absolutely. I would like to invite Director Jose Cornejo and please be sure to introduce all of the the employees tonight as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Thank you for a proclamation. But more important for the relationship that the members of the council have developed with public works, I think this is very, very important that we have this type of relationship in order to not only maintain the city, but continuing building the city the way we were doing. Yes, I wish that all 1100 employees could be here today because each one of them really deserve a buy on the back for what they do. But we have our Spotlight employees. We have the ten employees that has been nominated as employee of the year. And I'd like to talk a little bit about each one of them, because I think sometimes we get lost a little bit on when we have 1100 employees not talking about each one of them in what they they do on a day to day basis. So I'd like to start with Rudy Sloth from finance and administration. Rudy always goes above and beyond his duty. He engages in new training and new development opportunities. He was selected to participate in the Emerging Leaders Program and willingly accepted more responsibilities and challenges within the agency Dwayne feels from the free management. Duane is one of fleet's exceptional supervisors who is passionate about his employees. His customers need in agency priorities Sierra and his and assume from policy planning and sustainability. Sierra has exemplified leadership in the area of water quality planning and innovation by moving plans and projects forward even when policy barriers were present. Danny Lopez from Waste Water Operation. Danny has consistently been the highest production earner in his section. His experience in grading the condition of the city's sewer provides, as in every everybody. Everybody's making decisions with the right and exact information for future planning design solutions. Larry Lovato from Street Maintenance. I say my driver, Larry, plays a large role in helping St Monans achieve its annual goals, including paving an additional 75 lane miles each year with mining from the two way initiative. Rosalie Villalobos from Solid Waste Management. Rosalia serves as the backbone of Solid Waste Management. He coordinates and manages traffic control, which at times can be a challenging and difficult task that he handles with efficiency. Michael Lopez from Capital Project Management. Mike has been a key member of the capital project management team, specifically working with the Bridge Group. He has been instrumental in developing a new bridge maintenance program, using inspection findings to tackle necessary maintenance and repair work. Steven For Vili, right from right of way services, Steve is always trying to find ways to make Denver a better city. As a senior engineer, he contributes his wealth of experience in water quality surveying and transportation engineering to improve the quality of capital projects. And last but not least is Rachel. Rachel Brownson from Transportation. Rachel Passion for Transportation Weekly to here from intern to planner, Denver Public Works here. The indications stems from the impact transportation has on people every day life. Rachel strives to improve the quality of life in Denver. She builds thousands of miles each year on her own bike. So thank you very much for everything. One more. Rachel I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: Rachel. Ray Yes.
Speaker 4: Well, yes. And there is one more. Rachel Race watch from right away. Enforcement permits. Rachel has provided years of critical administrative support within right of way enforcement and permit applications here. Eight years. With the CD, clear areas of responsibilities have grown to include the electronic parking permits program, acting as a liaison from the parking magistrates to help with quality control for parking citations and supplying the staff with uniform and operational items. Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: And if you all wouldn't mind standing.
Speaker 4: Get your people to stand up, man.
Speaker 8: And there we go.
Speaker 0: Thank you all. Congratulations. All right, one more proclamation. 359. Councilman Lopez, will you please read proclamation 359.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating May 17 through May 23 as “Public Works Week in Denver” and congratulating the Denver Public Works Department’s ten employees of the year for 2014.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05182015_15-0359
|
Speaker 0: Thank you all. Congratulations. All right, one more proclamation. 359. Councilman Lopez, will you please read proclamation 359.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 359 series of 2015 recognizing May 19th as hepatitis testing day and July 28th as World Hepatitis Day. Whereas May 19th is National Hepatitis Testing Day, and July 28 is World Hepatitis Testing 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 and as many as 4 million American residents, nearly one in 50 persons and more than 130 people I'm sorry, 130 million people worldwide. And. Whereas, it is the leading cause of cirrhosis and liver cancer and the number one reason for liver transplants in the United States. And. Whereas, more Americans die of hepatitis C than from HIV making Hepatitis C one of the top preventable causes of death in the United States. And. Whereas, many, as many as 17,000 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 . And. WHEREAS, people born between 1945 and 1965 are five times more likely to be infected than any other adults. More than 75% of all people with hepatitis C in the United States are people in this age age range, and many remain unaware of their status because they have not been tested for the virus. And. WHEREAS, the incidence of hepatitis C disproportionately affects people of color. And. Whereas, 75% of infected persons do not show any signs or symptoms leading to the website to the hepatitis C virus to cause poor health outcomes and be labeled as, quote unquote, the silent epidemic. And. WHEREAS, the majority of individuals living with hepatitis C infection can be cured of the virus through the advent of effective treatment options currently available on the market and those cured through the treatment are able to stop and even reverse damage to the liver caused by the virus. And. WHEREAS, Hepatitis C treatment costs are less than one fifth the cost of liver transplants. And. WHEREAS, Hepatitis C can be prevented, testing can identify existing infections, and early diagnosis and treatment can save lives, money and resources. And. Whereas, Hep C connection is available as a statewide resource for education testing, linkage to care 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 hepatitis C is an important public health initiative that will improve the quality of life for Denver residents affected by the virus. Section two The Denver City Council proclaims May 19th as hepatitis testing day and recognizes July 28th as World Hepatitis Day. And Section three at the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Nancy Steinfurth, executive director of the hep-C Connection.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council proclamation number 359 series of 2015 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor and the pride to be able to pass this proclamation, will introduce this proclamation and hopefully, hopefully pass it well. Every year, with the hopes that we can get the word out there to educate people about this virus. Now, it is true, a lot of folks that who were from 1945 1965 and contracted it my I use this example because my grandfather who served in World War Two was injured and because of his injuries received a blood transfusion and because they did not test or screen for this then and were generally unaware of it, he contracted it. And the reason why he is not here today and died early is because of cirrhosis of the liver that was caused by that blood transfusion by hepatitis C. And had we had known about it a long time ago, he would probably still be here. There are a lot of people who are unaware of of their infection. It was a lot of people who have a lot of myths about hep C. It is preventable. We do have treatment for it. We just have to make sure that the word gets out and that we treat it like any other disease where we have to know as much as we can about it and keep folks aware of it and not humanize the folks that have it, but help them. And this is something that is the silent epidemic and it is preventable. And, Mr. President, I it plays on my emotions a little bit to read this proclamation, because I totally wish that we could have done this a long, long time ago and that these kind of proclamations are read in council a long, long time ago. So I am very honored to read this. I'm very honored to participate in your organization, your activities. And I asked my college colleagues to join me in supporting this proclamation and moving this forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: It was not on this bill. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. I apologize. Any other comments? Proclamation 359482.
Speaker 3: Supported.
Speaker 0: Seen on Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: Lopez. Hi, Montero. Hi, Nevitt. I Ortega.
Speaker 5: I Rob Shepherd. I Susman. Hi.
Speaker 2: Brooks. What's. Lehman.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please call the vote in and the results.
Speaker 2: Tonight.
Speaker 0: Tonight, Proclamation 359 has been adopted. Kathryn Lopez. There's somebody you'd like to invite to a podium to receive the proclamation.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Mr. President, I'd like to invite the director, executive director of the hep-C Connection, Ms.. Nancy Steinfurth, if you want to come up and introduce. Your partner.
Speaker 5: Thank you all very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you once again about this resolution. It's a really important public health issue, and I am honored that the Denver City Council has chosen to support this for many years now in the 2014 Health of Denver Report created by the Office Environmental of Environmental Health. It lists chronic liver disease as the seventh top leading cause of death in Denver and chronic liver disease as the fifth leading cause of premature death in Denver. Hepatitis C figures prominently in these rankings, but it doesn't have to. We encourage baby boomers and those with risk factors to get tested for free tomorrow in.
Speaker 6: The web.
Speaker 5: Building from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.. There is a cure, but only if you know you have the disease. So we strongly encourage everyone to get tested tomorrow. There's no sign up. You just walk in. It takes 20 minutes. It's a little fingerstick. It takes 20 minutes to get the results, I should say fingerstick 20 minutes. Good to go. So I would now like to introduce Dr. Sarah Rowan, who is from Denver Health.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, city council, for allowing me to speak about hepatitis C. I run a testing program and I treat patients who have hepatitis C. Hep C affects people of all ages, not just baby boomers. Women who are pregnant can transmit hep C to their babies. It affects young adults. It affects people in middle age, in forties, fifties, and it affects the baby boomer cohort that was born in 1945 to 1965. Unfortunately for the past, for the first time in the past 30 years, we're seeing an increase in new infections from hep C. There is a huge amount of transmission in the seventies and eighties and then the incidence went down and as I said, for the first time in 30 years, the incidence is increasing again. Our current data suggests that in Colorado the incidence is stable, but our data is based on surveillance from 2012 and 2013. That's the most up to date numbers that we have statewide about hepatitis C in neighboring states, including especially the ones in Central Appalachia or Appalachia, depending where you're from. They've seen a 364% increase in hepatitis C among people under age 30 from 2006 to 2012. In fact, 30 states around the country have seen an increase in hepatitis C and in that same time period. The CDC reports that in those Appalachian states with which are Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, they've seen a concurrent increase in admissions for treatment for opiate abuse and specifically injection drug abuse. The link between opiate abuse, injection, drug abuse and hepatitis C is very clear. This has been well documented in Colorado. As you all know, we have an increase in prescription drug opiate abuse in Colorado. And similarly, we have an increase in heroin use in both urban and non-urban areas in Colorado. In fact, from 2012 to 2013, there was a 27% increase in heroin use among people ages 18 to 24. We hope that harm reduction measures like needle exchange and increased testing that have been implemented to prevent HIV transmission will stem what seems like an inevitable increase in hepatitis C among young people. However, as treatment is not widely available for hepatitis C, the increase in hepatitis C that is coming to Colorado seems unfortunately inevitable. The second large population that's affected by hep C is the baby boomers in Colorado, specifically in the Denver metro. We have an increase in liver related cancers, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis and liver related death. Many people were infected before hepatitis C was even discovered, and the blood supply wasn't tested until 1992. So now, as the people who are infected in the seventies, eighties and early nineties are approaching 30 years of infection, they're developing complications of hepatitis C . It's a very indolent virus. But when it develops into hepatitis, into cirrhosis, the risk for decompensation and liver disease related death increases significantly. Our estimates from the state level suggest maybe 3000, maybe 7000 cases of hepatitis C. However, estimates from local data from Adams, Arapahoe and Denver counties suggests we may have 20,000 cases in just those three counties. Therefore, the cost, the morbidity and the mortality from hepatitis C will be increasing in the coming years. The majority of patients have Medicaid, so there will be an increased public burden of the cost of these treatments or lack of treatments. Testing for hepatitis C is the most important way to start the treatment process and to stem the growing morbidity and mortality. As I've mentioned to you the past two years, we've been doing a community testing initiative at Denver Health where we test in all of our community health clinics. We found that of 3000 baby boomers tested who had never been tested for Hep C before, 9% have hep C. So these are folks who never knew they had Hep C of the African-American men tested. 16% have hepatitis C. This is an incredible disparity in our community that needs to be addressed and also speaks to this increase in morbidity and mortality that we will be seeing. That concludes my comments and I'll be happy to take any questions. And thank you again for letting me speak.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I don't believe we had any questions. Thank you all for that. And thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing that forward again. All right. Those are two proclamations. We were ready for the resolution. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions.
Speaker 2: From infrastructure and culture to 66 resolution laying out, opening and establishing as part of city streets as some parts of L.A. Public Alley bounded by exterior street, Wall Street, West Fourth Avenue and West Fifth Avenue to 69 resolution lane out of any step change, Prior says in parcel Lana's East Mexico Avenue between South Jackson Street, South Colorado
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing May 19th as “Hepatitis Testing Day” and July 28th as “World Hepatitis Day”. A proclamation recognizing May 19th as “Hepatitis Testing Day” and July 28th as “World Hepatitis Day”.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05182015_15-0121
|
Speaker 3: things that you might have under there, see pesticides that you hadn't used, all of them of, or maybe a wood thinner or, you know, a paint product or something like that, or maybe some old cleaners that you don't want to throw in the landfill. So the idea is that we have a collection system that you can use, and so you don't throw that stuff in the landfill. So easiest way to find it is on our website. There's instructions there and phone numbers to call and instructions and they'll get you set up.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Don't throw that bad stuff away.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheperd. All right, Madam Secretary, let's see if the next one should be 217 color by Councilwoman Ortega, because I'm going to take what you'd like for us to do with this.
Speaker 3: I have a.
Speaker 0: Question. Go right ahead.
Speaker 3: If someone is here that can address my question, I would appreciate it. This is for AECOM Technical Services. It's for professional architect and Engineering Design Services for the 38th and Blake Transit Station for the the 35th 36 pedestrian bridge. So I'm just curious to know what changed in the scope of work that added $177,662 to the project? Is there someone that can answer that question for me? 20. I tried reaching out to the project manager before the meeting. I'm sorry. Wasn't able to get the details on this, but I can definitely clarify for you and send you an email in the morning. Okay. I would appreciate it. Absolutely. I'll let it go forward on. Thank you. On first reading. But I would like to get that information. Definitely. I'll send it to everyone. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. When I tell you I'm secretary, you ante up. The next one should be built under final two, two, five, seven cards we want to take. What would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 3: Also, question the right hand. It's related to 258259 and 260, although I'm just pulling out one of them. So I'm trying to understand what the total amount is for the 61st Avenue Pioneer Boulevard Transit Station. When I add up the numbers from the first two bills, it looks like it's $38,139,192. But then Council Bill 260 speaks to 35 million. And so I'm trying to understand what the total cost is on this project. It looks like the city via DIA is up fronting $17 million. Is that accurate? At least that's what I'm accountable to.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving an Agreement between the City and County of Denver and WM Curbside LLC to provide a Household Hazardous Waste collection program.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves an $850,000 contract with WM Curbsides, LLC through 4-18-17 for door-to-door collection, disposal, and recycling of residential household hazardous waste (oil, pesticides, batteries, etc.) on an appointment basis (2015 20767). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-18-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 3-12-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05182015_15-0257
|
Speaker 3: But then Council Bill 260 speaks to 35 million. And so I'm trying to understand what the total cost is on this project. It looks like the city via DIA is up fronting $17 million. Is that accurate? At least that's what I'm accountable to. 60 is saying. So, Stuart, are you the point guy or. Dan, would you mind coming forward and answering my questions?
Speaker 9: Council president and council members updated Perryman, the senior vice president of development at DIA. And to answer the specific question on cost, the total cost for phase one of the Penn Station Toad Project is 58.7 million, and DIA is contributing 38.14 million. The neighbors are contributing about 20.5 million neighbors.
Speaker 3: Meaning? You said the neighbors.
Speaker 9: The neighbors. You may remember that breakfast at this 400 acre Todd project in addition to these 60 acres. There's actually three other landowners of the fallen water company. Elsie Fuller Minor owns about 150 acres. They are the lead developer. Ferd Belz is here tonight representing Fuller Weiner. There's also the Smith estate, which owns an additional 150 acres. And there's a smaller piece, the same tea parcel. That's about 20 acres. There's also about 38 acres of open space. So these four owners have come together and process this Todd transportation oriented development plan over the last several years with a number of related agreements through council and have worked out now over the last couple years this plan of financing development for the Phase one infrastructure, as well as the Penn Boulevard East Line Station at this location and the connecting infrastructure and station together totaled a 58.7 million of which DIA is contributing 38.14 million upfront. Two things to remember. One is that DIA is projected to be completely repaid for that investment through metro district levies that are assessed on the neighbors property that I mentioned. And over 40 years, it's projected that we will be returned about $41 million, actually $42 million in total reimbursement. The other thing that's really important to remember is that this opens up for DIA a consistent and rather large non airline revenue stream that totals we're projecting somewhere between hundred. Let me just check my figures on that, between 132 and $194 million over a 40 year period. So we're actually projecting that the DIA investment of 38.1 million is repaid within a period of about 15 years. So to answer your your part of your question, which was within the financing concepts, the reimbursement that comes through the Metro District, repayments on the neighbors property, we actually those those are tied to specific interest rates against specific dollar amounts that are just portions of the total investment that was really done for financing purposes. But those two reimbursement amounts are 35.6 million and 6 million. And those total, the 41.6 million that's being reimbursed to DIA over time through these MIL levy reimbursement mechanisms.
Speaker 3: So then can you just clarify, you spoke to this being the first phase. So what entails any additional phases that will include additional cost to the city, whether it's from DIA or somewhere else within the city?
Speaker 9: The the phase one infrastructure as well as the station costs or the the lion's share or the great majority of the total development cost for this TOD. But there are some future phases that pertain to the installation, primarily of streets that go into expanding the development sites. At DIA's projected future phase, investments are in the range of about $6 million today.
Speaker 3: Which is the 6 million you just talked about.
Speaker 9: It's not directly tied to that, but we are projecting a future contribution required from DIA of $6 million, and that's generally generally related to installation of street cost. And again, that's strictly DIA cost, not not city of Denver General Fund.
Speaker 3: Okay. So the total cost then, is it 58.7?
Speaker 9: That is strictly for the phase one of this project, which as I mentioned, is the lion's share of the infrastructure. There will be minor costs, additional costs over time, but we anticipate that those will be a number of years into the future.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I appreciate you explaining all of that. I know you came to committee and sometimes, you know, the way the details are presented don't always give that full picture. So I needed to understand that as we're. Looking at all of these different bills before us tonight. So I appreciate.
Speaker 9: You're welcome. This is a complicated package with five agreements. And we were working on the closing today and we figured we can add up that there are actually 50 to 60 separate agreements and supporting documents that actually will be needed to support the final closing.
Speaker 3: And if you could just clarify one last thing. This is where Panasonic will be as well, correct?
Speaker 9: Yes. And these are the infrastructure costs that are necessary to make their site developable and they will actually be breaking ground on their side projected in October of this year.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right, we have one more, I believe, Madam Secretary, you want to tee that one up to 68, call up a member's thoughts and assessment? Let me first go to Councilman Ford. What did you want for us to do with that?
Speaker 8: I have some questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. And let me see. Councilwoman? Well, Councilman Brooks is chimed in to Councilwoman Sussman. Did you have questions or did you want to call for a vote? What did you want to do?
Speaker 5: I have some questions.
Speaker 0: Questions, will councilman. All questions. All right. We'll start it up, Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, the title of this ordinance concerns the sale of tobacco products. So that's the topic that we're talking about and and safety committee. We went down we were we heard testimony down one road about licensure. This is not a license. Your bill. This, as I understand it, was supposed to be conforming some of the definitions to state law. And so my first question is, is that the case? How does this fit with state law?
|
Bill
|
Amends an intergovernmental agreement with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) for the Fastracks East Corridor to fund the maximum amount of $12,189,520 for the design and construction of the light rail station located at 61st and Peña Boulevard in Council District 11 (AR0A001-2). (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Amends an intergovernmental agreement with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) for the Fastracks East Corridor to fund the maximum amount of $12,189,520 for the design and construction of the light rail station located at 61st and Peña Boulevard in Council District 11 (AR0A001-2). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 4-28-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05182015_15-0268
|
Speaker 8: This is not a license. Your bill. This, as I understand it, was supposed to be conforming some of the definitions to state law. And so my first question is, is that the case? How does this fit with state law? The second question, the I had received a letter of concern from a constituent in Harvey Park, and I wanted to be sure that a couple of these questions were asked. She was concerned about having a ban on outdoor our public use of tobacco products. I want make sure it does not do that except in certain circumstances. And the last thing is, she was very concerned about since you can't give away tobacco products. Of having the vet, the vape and the electronic cigarets. She was very concerned about that, stopping the ability to sample the taste of some of these. And I am just wondering if if you if you can't give it away, can you charge a penny or a nickel fee on each of I mean, this is a legal question, but I would like to know, is there a way around that? And who is the lawyer who drafted it? No.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Jessica Brody, assistant city attorney for the Denver city attorney's office. And I will do my best to answer your questions. So with respect to your first question, the definition in state law, there are a couple of provisions in the Colorado Revised Statutes that define tobacco products and in particular in Title 24, which concerns the regulation of tobacco sales to minors. There is a definition in 2435 502 which refers you back to Title 1813 121, which defines cigaret tobacco product or nicotine product as follows A product that contains nicotine or tobacco or is derived from tobacco and is intended to be ingested or inhaled by or applied to the skin of an individual or any device that can be used to deliver tobacco or nicotine to the person inhaling from the device, including an electronic cigaret, cigar, cigarillos or pipe. So to clarify, the specific words in our code are a little bit different from the specific words in the state statute, but I think the intent is to broadly define tobacco and nicotine products to cover the universe of products that are available in the marketplace today. Q Addressing your second question about outdoor use, nothing in the bill today changes or restricts outdoor use of products, so it's not going to make any change with respect to that specific issue. With regard to sampling, we have an existing provision and this is in Chapter 24 of the revised municipal code. This is the language that would be amended by by this bill. The existing provision already prohibits sampling of tobacco products. But again, what we're doing tonight is essentially updating the definition of tobacco products. The original version of this law was enacted in 1998. A lot of products have come to market since then, which were not contemplated back in 98. So the intent is to update the definition to include all of this products and treat the products in a similar manner.
Speaker 8: Just as a follow up on the latter one, then I'm not exactly sure from what the sampling has done since I am not a smoker at this point, and so I have not partaken of any of this. But can a person have a method to at least sell a puff? Of something I.
Speaker 10: Don't believe that would be prohibited by the legislation if it's amended tonight.
Speaker 8: You do not believe it would be prohibited. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Potts. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you for those questions. Councilman Potts, I have some similar ones. You read the state ordinance that were the state rule that we are trying to emulate. But you didn't read how ours was different from it. What were the characteristics that are so different from what the state says? What are we fixing in this city?
Speaker 10: Well, again, there are sort of two components to the bill before you tonight. One is an update of the definition of tobacco products, which we just talked about. Mm hmm. The other piece of it is to remove some restrictions on advertising of tobacco products at retail. Similar provisions have been struck down by the Supreme Court in the Lawler v Riley decision. So the intent of tonight's legislation is to address those those two issues. The state does not have a sampling prohibition akin to the city's sampling prohibition.
Speaker 5: And thank you. And my next question is, does the does our proposed ordinance prohibit the sampling of a product that has no nicotine in it?
Speaker 10: I don't believe it would.
Speaker 5: Okay. You don't believe it would?
Speaker 10: Well, again, I would refer you back to the definition of of tobacco products as it's as it's proposed, means any product containing tobacco or nicotine or that is made or derived from tobacco. So if there's no nicotine or no tobacco, I don't believe it would be included in that definition.
Speaker 5: And we don't allow sampling of cigarets. Right. Correct. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Guzman-Lopez Councilman Brooks deferred to you.
Speaker 4: Actually, go ahead, Councilman.
Speaker 7: What I was going to maybe in your remarks you're going to answer my question, but I wanted to talk a little bit about the outreach that you did in lieu of this bill coming up.
Speaker 4: No, absolutely. Thank you, Councilman, if I may. Council President.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Hernan and I do appreciate the the questions. In no way is this a ban of any kind of outdoor use or public use. What we wanted to do is when we were looking at originally what we set out to do, and this is a lot of folks actually in our city, especially a lot of the youngsters that came and have been working on this for a few years. Let me just start out with what the problem we have found and we with Denver Health and also with a lot of the youth that are working on this license to sell tobacco products. But we are seeing more access for young people. And this all started with young people. And no way is this an attack on the folks who sell vape. What we want to prohibit is what's going on now. And this is something that's recently been released by the CDC, is that more and more than a quarter of a million young people, middle of these middle school, middle school and high school students who have never smoked a regular cigaret had smoked an electronic cigaret. Now, this is something that does carry nicotine, and that's three times the increase in usage among teens from 2013 to 14. In the same breath, a group of students that were working, working over a couple of years had gone in on their own as part of this project, as part of the study, and found that any time they go into some of these shops and cigarets, but these were non non cigaret tobacco products and they asked to sample and they asked to get a hold of them 60% of the time they were successful. And so we want to be able to address that. That is an issue. Yes, tobacco use is a preventable issue and it is a death from tobacco products is preventable. We want to make sure that this bill, when we looked at we originally looked at this as licensing. In looking at licensing, we realized that we were behind were behind the times in our own ordinances. And so in doing that, we realized that, one, we can preempt federal law in Supreme Court decision. So we wanted to eradicate those that language. But two, to add to update the universe because since 1998, there's been a lot of new products out there. We're looking at cigarillos, dissolvable electronic cigarets who could tobacco not listed in and so we want to do is update it because you know nine times out of ten you go into a shop, a lot of folks know what they're doing is not selling to anybody under 18. But there are some bad actors out there and we want to make sure that we are going after those bad actors because it's not right minors being given these products. Right. And we want to protect that. So, you know, I was unaware of the email until today. And, you know, not to say that it doesn't count or doesn't matter, but we did have a public hearing committee. We discussed this. You invited a lot of folks to the table or you outreached with the business community, the Retailers Association. A lot of those folks, you know, at the end of the day, they were okay with actually updating our language is the license, the licensing scheme that generated a lot of the heartburn. So, you know, the result of it is, is we're working on it with the task force at Denver Health and we're going to look at it closer and see what we can do to prevent the usage among youngsters with some of these products, but also to make sure that that we are doing our best in the city to understand who is selling these products, update that database because it is defunct, it is disorganized, and also to make sure that at least from our in our enforcement is up to par. And I think that's something that we discussed in that process. So like I said, the intent is to clean up the bill and the intent is to clean up the universe, make sure that we're in stride with with regulation.
Speaker 0: So thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So I received a just an email and you know, this bill is on second reading. And I say this all the time when we're or discussing bills, you know, please don't come at the last minute. But we did receive this email today and then I received a couple messages as well. And it was enough for me to to bring it up to you, councilman, and to, you know, whoever you're working with was staff. But the issue is the vamping stores are feeling like if they don't get a chance to, you know, we're hurting our whole industry, right? If they don't get a chance to sample in there. And so I just wanted to make sure you were they were able to reach out to you, that you had a conversation with some of those folks. And if so, who who were those individuals? And just.
Speaker 4: Yeah, just for the record, if I if I can respond, you know, I, I didn't with all due respect, I had no idea you and your association even existed until about 2:00 today, and I just figure it out. Okay. Well, I guess there was a blog, an announcement that sent out. There's something. I had no idea. Had we known. We've been invited to the table. I'm the intent is isn't to hurt the shops itself, but it's to tighten up our laws to make sure that we are were up to date. It's the chapter 24 to point out. You want to make sure that we're up to date and that we are mindful of what products are out there. And we want to make sure that they're out of the hands of minors. Now, is this something that would prevent your business from succeeding? Is this something that will prevent you from sampling? Absolutely not. Charge a penny, charge a nickel, whatever it takes. You know, I can't go into a cigaret store and say, can I sample a cigaret? I can't. I can't do that with a lot of products. That's something that, you know, we worked out. But that's not the intent. The intent is to keep it out of hands of minors that our our laws. You can still sample. Just might want to charge a penny. Charge a nickel.
Speaker 0: Bricks. You have any other.
Speaker 7: Nano right now?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember, you're up.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, I. I had rung in, and then I wasn't sure that I needed to weigh in on it. But I do want to say that I've watched the work that Councilman Lopez has done on this. We're a group of students in front of council a couple years ago, and once I. I did to receive the emails today and once I read through the bill and realized these are fairly minor changes that do bring it up to date, I am in support of the ordinance.
Speaker 0: All right, so my screen just went out. So I have to look up, see if there anybody else. Kathryn Lopez, go ahead.
Speaker 4: You know, president, with all due faith and respect, you know, I do want to be able to have a conversation with folks. Just because you are not out at the podium and weren't able to come to committee doesn't mean that the opinion doesn't matter. And does it matter? I would have knowing that there is some kind of organization, I would like to have that discussion. But do I want to hold up the bill? Something I've worked on for a long time on and put a lot of effort in? No, but I would love to understand, you know, the industry, everything else and see how we move forward from there. But at this point forward, you know, at the final reading, I'd like to see it pass on final reading. But like I said, no, no disrespect intended.
Speaker 0: All right. Any other comments on 268? All right. Well, Madam Secretary, I believe that is all the bills we have called out. So we are ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman Sussman, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolutions all of series 15 to 60 6 to 69 to 70 to 73 to be adopted in a block.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. And secondly, saying no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call Lopez.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. I Sussman. Hi, Brooks.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 2: Fats.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 2: Lehmann. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. And now the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted in the block. Councilman Sussman, would you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for passage in block?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. I move that all series of 15 bills for final consideration do pass in a bloc. They are bill 257 258 259 two 6261 to 60 2 to 63 191 213 229 two 3231 232 233 234, two, 35, 256 and 268.
Speaker 0: Hi. It's been moved and seconded. So you no comments, ma'am? Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Shepherd I Susman Brooks.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 3: Putts i.
Speaker 2: Liman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Monteiro, I.
Speaker 2: Nevett I. Ortega, I. Rob I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 ice, 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: The bills placed on final consideration do pass in the block. Since there are no public hearing tonight and no objections from member of Council will not take a recess on Monday, June 1st, there will be required public hearing on Council Bill 304 establishing the Reno Business Improvement District and a required public hearing on Council Bill 309 establishing the Reno Denver General Improvement District. On Monday, June 15th, there'll be a required public hearing on Council Bill 298 regarding tax amendment to the Denver Zoning Code. We are off next week for the Memorial Day holiday. So, you know the business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 4: Denver eight. On TV and online. To stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 5: You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.
|
Bill
|
Revises the Denver Municipal Code to align with Colorado and Federal laws regarding tobacco products. a) Presentation. b) Fifteen (15) minutes of public comment on proposal. Two minutes per speaker and equal opportunity for opposing perspectives as determined by the Committee Chair. Individuals wishing to speak must sign up in the Council conference room (3rd Floor, City & County Building, Rm. 391) between 1:00 pm and 1:15 pm. The order of speakers is determined by the Committee Chair. c) Discussion/Action.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04272015_15-0222
|
Speaker 8: we have had a lot of change orders, changing conditions in that time, labor and materials have gone up. That certainly is adding to increased costs of could those have been avoided? Well, better plans would have meant fewer change orders. I do want to mention that at one point when we set up a the airport, set up a change order committee, and they came to us informing us of this. And I asked at that time, Patrick Hack was the finance director, and I asked Patrick, I said, you know, I don't like change a lot if you decide you're going to do something one way, I would want to be sure it was absolutely necessary to change. I said, Who on this committee would approach things conservatively, i.e. most like me? And he sort of smiled and he said, well, he said, I will tell you who would who would represent your point of view. I would. That's Patrick Hecht speaking. Well, you know, Patrick Heck is nowhere around now, so that leaves concerns for me on change orders. I mean, I don't know if there's anybody there really watching each particular item, but I do know we've come up with on this particular contract a $20 million deficit. There are other things I started to think now those are the things that perhaps we couldn't have controlled. But there are things that as you look at construction projects and I say this more in just in case any of the candidates are watching, certainly for the citizens in this room. These are some of the things I hope that people will start to think about that also add to the cost of construction. First of all, the 1% for art does and. You might still want to do it. You might want to scale it to the size of the project. I don't know. But that is not set in concrete. It's something that you can always evaluate. Incentives were built into this this contract, I think at least 5 million, I think they mentioned. Do we give incentives for meeting time points when we have cost overruns? Should incentives have that extra part that it has still has to be a not only totally at the end on time and on budget, especially that on budget. One thing I have never been able to get a handle on is what the increased cost for the various levels of percentages of goals are in the Minority and Women Business Enterprise Program. Now, I'm not saying that you don't say it's not worth doing, but I am saying it is absolutely inappropriate to me to have a program that continues to grow where nobody can tell me what the cost is. In construction. So those are some things I hope that the candidates ask questions. And for those who are elected here, I hope they will take up the banner of saying we want to keep costs under control. These have gotten too high for me. 500,000 or 500 million was what it was supposed to be. That's. All, I'm willing to go. And so I'll be voting against this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. We had some lengthy discussion about this when it came to committee, and I had some additional questions. So I sat down and met with our folks from the airport to walk through my questions and concerns. And we have to finish this project, no doubt. And it's one that I think we're all going to be very proud of, and it's going to provide an additional service to our airport by folks being able to come in and attend a conference and not have to leave the airport and fly out quickly. For folks that may be delayed and may have to spend the night at the airport, sometimes the airlines will put you up for the night. So this might be one of those opportunities where you don't have to travel far. But I think the important thing for me is looking at the cost and they are what they are. But it's important for us to actually know all the real costs. So when you hear that the cost of doing, you know, the the hotel project is only now at 544 million. That doesn't factor in. The bridges and the roads that had to be done. And, you know, so for me, it's. Looking at the big picture, we would not have otherwise done those roads and bridges if it were not for doing this project. And and so when we talk about what the total cost is, it's important for us to know all of those costs. And I was able to sit down and and look at what those all are. And, you know, I'm supportive of the project moving forward. Not happy that it's cost more money. But we also know that because there's so much construction going on in this city, that. Everybody who's building is having a hard time trying to find workers to do their projects. And when they have to travel 25 miles out and pay the cost of driving back and forth, that adds to the cost of construction for this particular project. So my only point in in making comment is that when we talk about this project, it's important to know the total cost of what we have had to spend to do this. I do have one question and I'm not sure who from DIA can address this, but given the fact that we're adding $17 million in 2015 and. Kim Dae mentioned that it's coming out of IP funds. I'd like to know what sippy projects are not going to get done in 2015 because we're having to use. $17 million of CIP monies for this to complete this project through the end of of the timeframe. So, Stu, are you the one that wants to answer this question for me? This is Stew Williams.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of Council Mr. Williams, senior.
Speaker 0: Vice president of the Hotel and Transit Center in special projects for Denver International Airport.
Speaker 3: The actual funding of the shortfall for the Hotel and Transit Center program is coming out of cash reserves, at least initially. How that's handled out ultimately is part of an overall debt structure, or whether it will just be done through cash has not yet been determined. So at this point in time, this particular cost did not bump either projects out of the list.
Speaker 6: Okay. I'm just a little baffled because I thought when I had asked the question in committee, Kim Dae had said that it would come out of the CIPA budget.
Speaker 3: It's basically.
Speaker 0: Being reimbursed from reserves and then into the.
Speaker 3: CIPA. But it wasn't like the line four line that we had to deduct to a particular project for this. It was part of the CCP plan.
Speaker 6: So we're keeping a copy budget hole by taking the money from the cash reserves and replenishing that.
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. So. All right. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you again, councilman.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in Councilwoman Ortega in in supporting this bill. We could spend a lot of time talking about the the costs associated with the hotel and transit project and what costs should be rolled into the price tag and what costs shouldn't be credited to that account. Because, as Councilwoman Ortega points out, some things were added to the scope of the work out there that aren't part of the hotel and transit center. We could also talk about the costs of the various sort of add on features of the program, the MWB program, the 1% for art. We could also talk about the impact of the the rise in construction pricing. There's a there's there's plenty of grist for this particular mill. But I think what's important to understand here is that we are facing a certain amount of cost increases to complete this project. And what the team out at DIA has done has very elegantly tied up the end game for this project neatly in a package. So we know now precisely the cost that we're dealing with. And all change orders are wrapped into even though we don't may not know what those change orders are, all the change orders will be wrapped up into this price. And so we can move forward with the last was it six months, eight months of this project and know exactly what we're getting and know exactly what the price is. So there may be question marks that, you know, the lines of inquiry we could pursue with respect to the financing and construction of this all along. But here at the end game, I think this is a very elegant solution to get us to a neat, tidy and expeditious conclusion to this project. And so I hope everyone will vote for this final package. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Any other comments or questions on two 2229 Madam Secretary?
Speaker 4: Raquel Potts.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 4: Carnage. Layman Lopez AI. Montero Nevitt Ortega I. Rob Shepherd I. Susman Brown.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and now the results.
Speaker 4: 11 Ice, one nay.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes, one nay. Council Bill 222 has been ordered published. All right, Madam Secretary, that was the last one. So we are now ready for the block votes. All of the all other bills for introduction are already published. Councilman Shepard, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions 206 and 248 series of 2015 be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: SUSSMAN Hi, Brown.
Speaker 3: Hi.
|
Bill
|
Amends a contract with Mortenson/Hunt/Saunders (MHS) by adding $20 million for a total contract in the amount of $385 million for material and labor cost adjustments associated with the completion of the Hotel and Transit Center Program. There is no additional time added to the contract (201204956). (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Amends a contract with Mortenson/Hunt/Saunders (MHS) by adding $20 million for a total contract in the amount of $385 million for material and labor cost adjustments associated with the completion of the Hotel and Transit Center Program. There is no additional time added to the contract (201204956). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting 4-14-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04202015_15-0190
|
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance that allows bicycles to be on the downtown mall on Saturdays as well as Sundays. And I at first had some concerns because of my own personal circumstances. I am one of the few people who has been unlucky enough to be leveled by a bicycle. When I was on the sidewalk, I mean, I went splat everywhere. Sunglasses, damaged, bleeding. I mean, I know how it is to to be hit by a bicycle. And so I just wanted to be to get a question answered from the police department as to how they intend to enforce having no bicycles on the sidewalks and what they do anticipate happening.
Speaker 7: Good evening. We have officers assigned to the 16th Street Mall to enforce violations such as riding on the sidewalk. And our position is that we we try to educate people with regards to what's permissible or not, but we enforce and cite for obvious violations. If we have somebody that's behaving egregiously, recklessly and not willing to cooperate, or if we get complaints in a particular area on the mall, on the sidewalk area where we get repeated offenses. But our objective is to partner with Downtown Dare and partnership the ambassadors and the officers that we have work in fixed posts and routine patrol on the mall, ma'am, to educate and then take enforcement action when the need arises. So on a case by case basis, they could very well be cited if they, for example, if they're from out of town and they're not, they rent a bike and that are where the procedure and we contact them and they're cooperative and then we can get them back into the traffic lane where they should be. And that's more of a election release type of situation. If we have an individual that isn't cooperative, is well aware of what the ordinance is and refuses to comply with our requests, then they're more they're more likely to be cited. But we take that very seriously. Ma'am.
Speaker 8: I appreciate that. Commander, please know that speaking from a pedestrian standpoint, I don't want to see those bicycles on the sidewalk. It brings a terrible memories. And I don't want somebody else going through what I went through.
Speaker 0: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 3: Commander, introduce yourself for the record.
Speaker 7: Sorry. My name is Tony Lopez. I'm the Denver District Six commander. I apologize.
Speaker 3: There's a lot to offer. Yes, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Yes? Just just a comment. No need to stand up here, Commander Lopez. Appreciate your service. I just wanted to mention. Well, first of all, I'm so excited to have your support councilwoman fights on this bill. I, I just want to mention that this is something that we can do on the 16th Street Mall. This is an exciting deal. We're open up the 16th Street Mall to ride bikes in the transit lanes and not on the sidewalk. And we're really excited about this. The several neighbors, all generations are excited about this. But there was some fear around, you know, how do we make sure people follow the rules? And so we will be putting up signs of public works and downtown have a partnership. And, you know, District six police officers will be looking for this. So we will make sure that enforcement will be happening. But this is a good thing for the city and county of Denver. We have one of the Marshall fellows that I mentioned is from Copenhagen. So I know she's excited about this opportunity as well. But this is this is really good for the city and I'm excited and and hopefully we'll see more biking opportunities in the city and kind of a thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. All right. We had one more bill that was called out, brought to my attention, 197 called out by Councilwoman Monteiro. What would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 8: I just want to make a comment.
Speaker 3: Go right ahead.
Speaker 8: Thank you. So, council bill 197, it's on bills for introduction. But this is a bill that that we're that works with 38th and Bleecker Street Sidewalk Project. And many of the folks in this area, especially around 38th and Black Street, are really excited. What it does is the nutshell in a nutshell, it's $2 million in federally funded projects. Dr. COG Second commitment via our TD Regional Transportation District. It creates new sidewalks from 35th to 40th on Lake Street on the southeast side of the street. And RTD is doing the other side concurrently. So it helps to improve pedestrian safety and connectivity in the area where there were no where there were no sidewalks. There'll be new street lighting along Blake Street. New dedicated bike lanes will be installed from 35th to 40th. There'll be painted bike lanes. 20 new bike parking spaces around the future. 38 and Blake Street Light Rail Commuter Rail Station. So I just bring this up because a portion of them are in Council District nine in the River North neighborhood. So thank you so much to all of our partners and especially to public works for all of your hard work on this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. All right. See no other bills call out. We are ready for the black boots. All of the bills reduction are ordered published. Councilman Nevett, will you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage in a block?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move.
Speaker 7: That the following bills all series of.
|
Bill
|
Amends Section 54-44 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to permit the operation of bicycles on the designated transit way of the 16th Street pedestrian and transit mall on Saturdays. a) Presentation. b) Fifteen (15) minutes of public comment on proposal. Two minutes per speaker and equal opportunity for opposing perspectives as determined by the Committee Chair. Individuals wishing to speak must sign up in the Council conference room (3rd Floor, City & County Building, Rm. 391) between 10:00 am and 10:15 am. The order of speakers is determined by the Committee Chair. c) Discussion/Action. (INFRASTRUCTURE AND CULTURE) Amends section 54-44 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to permit the operation of bicycles on the designated transit way of the 16th Street pedestrian and transit mall on Saturdays. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-8-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04202015_15-0172
|
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 172 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Council. President, Members of Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you and present the future vision of Denver Zoo, the most popular cultural institution in Colorado. And I think you'll see in the audience some pink flamingo support. So if you're wondering what these little pink stickers are, let me start by saying an amazing amount of work has gone into this plan. It's been in development since 2009. Over 10000 hours have gone into it. We've consulted with not only the best zoos in the country, but numerous stakeholders, including students, teachers, community leaders and neighborhood groups . Most recently, you've been hearing about our public meetings series and online outreach. The feedback we've heard over the last five years has been extremely important in shaping this plan. And the feedback we heard in the last three months containing over 550 comments has also been incorporated into the plan, and the feedback will receive in the next five years is going to be important to this plan. The Denver Zoo is committed to receiving ongoing public input, and that dialog does not end or begin. Today. We are the community zoo and we only exist because of the support of the community. Now there is a sense of urgency here. We've heard loud and clear from the public that animal care should be a top priority. I'm here to tell you today that our first project will be a new home for our endangered tigers. And the great news is that this project is completely funded. Tonight, we seek your approval of Denver Zoo's building plan. We're not expanding into the park. There's 71 buildings now. There's 71 buildings in the future. And our tallest building is a tree. The facility's master plan has been approved by the Parks and Recreation Manager as outlined in our operating agreement. And your approval tonight allows several key items to occur. It allows critical animal care and infrastructure upgrades to be made to our facility, keeping Denver Zoo a national leader in animal care and conservation. It allows opportunities for local students and families to connect with animals and nature through our education satellites in this plan. And it also allows me to energize Denver Zoo's board to continue to fundraise and invest back in our transformative institution. Please allow me also to explain what the approval of the building plan is. Not approval of the building plan is not a blank check for development and expansion. Approval of the building plan does not exempt the zoo from following all current or future building design. Permitting construction requirements and processes and approval of the building plan does not exempt the zoo from continuing to work with Parks and Recreation Council and our neighbors. All public engagement steps have been completed in coordination with Parks and Recreation, in accordance with our cooperative agreement with the city. We directly invited 14 rhinos which surround the zoo to participate in the process. Along with us, the community meeting schedule and online feedback opportunities were shared via our website social media through our Zoo publications because we serve many different stakeholders representing many different people in the metro region. This was all done in good faith and to the best of our capabilities. We very intentionally consulted with a third party facilitator in order to emphasize transparency and conduct real time polling during meetings, allowing us to dig into the why behind many responses and prioritize community feedback. This format, along with the interactive online model, made the feedback process a two way communication. The engagement meetings resulted in the development of a new chapter in the master plan called Zoo Community Interface and Intentional Discussion and Acknowledgment of the Denver Zoo integrating into City Park. We also tested and ultimately included an additional guiding principle to the plan titled Community, which will help guide us in our ongoing commitment with the diverse communities that we serve. Please let me share with you this guiding principle. Denver Zoo is a part of City Park of Denver, the nation and the world. We value diverse communities in which we belong. As part as Denver's City Park. We respect our neighbors and we build upon the legacy of the zoo within the park and strive to achieve the best physical and operational presence for all the communities that we serve. Council I ask that you approve this building plan tonight. So Denver Zoo may continue to provide life changing experiences for Colorado citizens for another hundred years.
Speaker 9: Good evening. I'm Laurie Danny Miller, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. And I'm here tonight to support the adoption of the building plan as presented to you for the future build out of the Denver Zoo. As you know, the zoo has done extensive outreach on their master plan and the building plan itself. You'll hear about registered neighborhood meetings, citywide meetings, outreach to our planning and design staff, and outreach to the greater zoo community through an online survey. You'll also hear of how the input at the meetings shape changes to the original plan, since the neighbors were interested primarily at that time about how the southern and western edges of the zoo interfaced with the park. Tonight's hearing is being held as a requirement of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, which requires a public hearing for any buildings that are proposed in parks over 3000 square feet or over 35 feet high. You will note that the plan in front of you does contain buildings exceeding that threshold. The zoo forwarded the building plan to US Denver Parks and Recreation after their final public meeting on March 10th. We heard the master plan at the and the building plan at the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on March 12th, and it was supported unanimously by Prabhu. Denver Parks and Recreation then forwarded that building plan to City Council for review at their March 25th. Infrastructure and Culture Committee for Review. However, we realized on April 9th that we had not completed the required R.A. notification per the code. So we asked for a delay in this public hearing from last week to this week so we could notify R.A. of this hearing. That notice happened on April 10th for tonight's April 20th hearing. Your passing in this plan does not give the zoo carte blanche rights to commence building without future outreach and planning. As Shannon mentioned, it simply identifies which buildings are slated to expand, be demolished or added all within the footprint of the current boundaries. Any construction that will impact City Park will require approval of the building plans, respective city agencies and cooperation with our office in order to minimize impacts on the park. I believe you. Here are some folks tonight in support of the plan and some opposed. Mostly, the opposition will be focused on how the zoo is impacting the park and its successful functioning. However, I must remind you all that the zoo is in the park. There is not a property line delineating the zoo from the park. The zoo is not moving, as some folks here tonight may suggest, but rather they're a trusted and vital partner in the cultural environment of City Park. When you when you look at your plan and realize that all of the improvements contemplated are completely within the footprint of the zoo, you will conclude that they get that the zoo gets, that improvements will be on their current site and not beyond it. They have even contemplated expansion of underground parking so as to lessen parking impact on the park. I believe this is a major indication of the zoo's intent to stay within their footprint of the plan. When construction happens in city parks, like in any park, yes, there will be disruption. When we improve the parking lot adjacent to the City Park Pavilion, there was a decrease in the amount of parking available. Construction causes disruption. In this case, temporary disruption of the circulation due to possible buildings with the zoo will be minimal since it's within the zoo boundaries. I conclude by saying I believe the zoo made significant efforts to inform and engage surrounding neighborhood associations and their building plan, while ambitious, will only add to the success and sustainability of this wonderful institution within City Park.
Speaker 10: Thank you, the council, for a chance to speak. My name is George Parnham, the vice president for design and campus management at Denver Zoo. And I'll be very brief, because it's already been stated a couple of times, but I specifically just want to call attention to the plan that that under consideration tonight, specifically this building plan. Just try to highlight a couple of points in this plan that I think are significant as it already has been stated. The plan is really in some ways a reduction of a lot of work, a lot of collaboration, and in many in many cases, a lot of content that our master plan represents. But just because it is a reduction in no means makes this plan less exciting, less deliberate and less rigorous. There is a tremendous amount of intention and and we think collaboration and positive impact for the for the future inside of this plan. I'll call attention to just a couple of things that have already been stated. There's 71 buildings in the zoo currently, and this plan shows 71 buildings in the zoo. At the end of this this plan, 32 buildings would be removed through construction process and the development of this plan, and 32 buildings would be added through through this plan for a very exciting world class facility. It's already been noted. I want to make sure that that I reiterate this. The building plan calls calls for us to show you buildings that are over 3000 square feet or taller than 35 feet. The largest building buildings on this plan actually are are two buildings that have 500 parking spaces underneath them. Each building has 250 parking spaces underneath them. And you see that noted on your plan. That's what makes the square footage so large and large in those buildings. But that's truly a commitment and a very deliberate act to try to improve and listen to the things that have been going on over several years and to that principal of community to make sure that our operational presence in the park is is the best that it can possibly be. That's why there's 500 parking spaces indicated on this plan. There's only one building that that is taller than 35 feet in this plan. And it's a tree, an artificial tree, a tree that has a classroom in it, that overlooks an African savanna where kids are going to be able to come to the zoo and engage in our education programs and enjoy world class exhibit tree. This plan, like I said, is rigorous and deliberate, and I'll just leave you with this. The reason is, is that we're responsibility. We're responsible for taking care of animals and taking care of our public and educating them. That's what this plan does. It gives us an incredibly incredible vision for a new zoo where we can do a world class exhibit tree, take care of animals and educate our public.
Speaker 3: Thank you all for that staff report. We have 19 individuals signed up to speak this evening. This evening, 17 in favor, two opposed. I'm going to call the first five up. You can make your way to the first pew. Doug Tisdale, Hank Booth, Tom Wiggs, Louis Pawlikowski and Paulie Reeds. And apologies for any mispronunciations on that so you five can make your way up. And welcome, Mayor. You can go ahead and begin your remarks.
Speaker 7: May it please the Council. Good evening, Mr. President. Counselors, my name is Doug Tisdale. I'm proud to be one of Mayor Hancock's appointees to the Denver Zoo Board. And in that capacity, you would expect me to support this council bill. And I do. But you also know me as a former mayor, as one of the officers of Dr. Kaag and of CML and the National League of Cities. You know me as a regionalist and as a regionalist. I truly understand what an amazing asset the Denver Zoo is to the residents of Denver, of the Denver region and of the state of Colorado. The Denver Zoo is consistently ranked as one of the top five zoos in the country. It's the most popular cultural attraction in Colorado, welcoming 2 million guests every year with almost one out of five of those guests enjoying free access to your zoo. Its educational programs reach over 140,000 people annually. You're familiar with the accolades? I won't repeat them. I'll just highlight one fact. The Denver Zoo began in 1896. In 1918, your zoo opened its first major physical structure, Bear Mountain. Over the past 97 years, there have been a number of improvements constructed on this historic site. But time and technology advance and these buildings age. Making your zoo one of the best in the nation is a continuing process. That's what this park building plan is all about. Your zoo spent countless hours in planning and meetings with neighbors and experts and the stakeholders to address the needs of this cultural icon. That careful and considered process resulted in this plan crafted with tremendous sensitivity to the environment our neighbors, our guests, and our overseers. That's the trustees. And you we ask, therefore, tonight that you give your final approval so that our Denver Zoo can continue to do what is needed to maintain its status as a premier zoo in the United States, and to become the number one cultural attraction, not just in the state of Colorado, but in the Rocky Mountain West . I urge you to vote yes on Council Bill 15 172. Thank you. Thank you. Hank Boots. Evening. You can see by my pink flamingo. I don't hate the zoo. I take this opportunity to talk about the process before the council. However, four months ago, City Park friends and neighbors was told that a neighborhood advisory committee would be in the interests of the zoo, the museum, the city council and the neighbors surrounding the zoo. To date, we've gone nowhere with that. And I'm here to ask again for support from the council to get this formed. The zoo and the museum are amenable to this. We've had conversations with people from both institutions and it would be helpful if we could engage in this process a little better. I'd like to say that the plan itself is so vague that it's really hard to be opposed to it. But one thing we do know is it will impact parking during construction and the citizen involvement on a survey only goes so far. I took the survey ten times and I moved all over the country when I took it. So neighborhood involvement, I think, needs to be a little stronger. The other issue that has come up I mentioned is the ten day notice. I appreciate that it was delayed. This vote was delayed to give ten days notice. I'm urging the council to consider it really needs to be 30 days notice. R.A. don't meet every week. They don't meet every two weeks. They meet once a month. And for every R.A. affected, if you miss, if you get a ten day notice three days after your monthly meeting, the ten day notice is worthless. You can't get people to reschedule their lives and attend another important meeting to discuss these issues. Those are my two points. I want to see the NRC get off the dime and there are now going to be two council people that have districts about the zoo, and I'm asking them in particular to engage and bring the neighbors in on a formal way, as we were discussing four months ago. It's time to get going on that. Thanks very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Tom Wiggs. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council. I'm a member of your district. I live in your district. I've lived there since 1947. So 68 years is in Park Hill. I went to the zoo as a tyke. I kids went to the zoo as takes and our grandkids go to the zoo as Takes. It's a wonderful institution and it has been emphasized that this is not an increase in footprint. And the biggest thing is the baobab tree, which is going to be a pretty neat thing for the zoo. I think. Just as you see from the outside, though, the goal of the zoo is a better world for animals through understanding. And we've been engaged and I say that I'm retired and my wife and I both retired when we both volunteer at the zoo, at the museum, we've tutored at Parkhill and we've worked in homeless programs in Denver. So we're involved in the community and we see this as a gem of the community. And we urge your approval of this, this current amendment to the plan. I would call to your attention this really neat book. It doesn't necessarily impact history, but this is a book written by a University of Colorado Denver about the history of the zoo, formulated 1885 and that's a wealth of information is probably still in print if you find it and I urge you to get that also. But back to the zoo. The zoo is a gym and I was at a public meeting very extensive time for people to have input back in early March. So there has been so some input in. So I urge your approval of this next important step. Thank you. Thank you. Louis Public asking.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Good evening, council members. Perhaps you might recall I was here on the 15th of December. It was regarding the zoo's gasification plan. All of you unanimously voted to approve that plan. But you acknowledged that there was a need for greater citizen involvement in the decision making process. Councilman Brooks was applauded for leading the charge on the formation of a neighborhood advisory committee and NSC to work with the zoo and its neighbors on future plans. He even went so far to say that all of the protests over the ugliness of Gate 15 could have been avoided had citizens been better involved in the process and agreed that citizens were left out of the conversation. Councilman Brown. Called the formation of the NRC a win win. The zoo gets the gasification plan and the neighbors will now get a voice in the process. Council person Shepherd said, I heard great comment on the part of Councilman Brooke's commitment I'm sorry on forming that noisy group and went on to say that the zoo and the park are married and have been for over 100 years. I'm not sure if there's any marriage that could survive if one of the partners announces a 20 year plan without serious conversation with the other partner. I could quote more, but my 3 minutes are not enough. Suffice it to say that all council people agreed the need for better citizen input and conversation. I'd add that the zoo's director, Sharon Black, can be seen nodding her approval of greater citizen involvement. You can watch the video. The NRC is forming but has not yet met. I know. Wheels of government move slow, but when it comes to a major 20 year zoo construction plan, these same same wheels seem to gain traction. I would ask you, what is the rush? Six of the 13 council seats are going to be changed in the coming election in just a few weeks. Is the zoo trying to put the plan in place before this lame duck council term is over? Or is the zoo rushing to push this plan before the lauded NSC is put in place? Given the past history of and the overwhelming support for greater citizen involvement. It only seems right that you vote to delay and any decision on far reaching construction plan until a new council is seated and meaningful conversation is had with the NSC. We all love our city and we look forward to things of beauty that can be created. Please, let's not repeat mistakes of the past. Vote to delay a 20 year construction plan is not a small issue and ten days of notice the army knows is hardly enough time to give it the type of conversation that it deserves. If you want citizen to be involved, then I urge you, please delay this vote. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next is Polly Read and as misreads come up, I'm gonna call the next five. Carl Waller, Mary Peoples, Laurie Galbraith, Nate Connelly and Katie Philpot. And the last part of your name was marked off. My apologies. Miss Rich, you can go ahead and begin.
Speaker 8: Very good evening. My name is Polly Reads. I'm a resident.
Speaker 9: Of the city and county of Denver. I've lived in Denver for about 40 years. My husband moved here in 1954. He remembers when the zoo was basically a basin, a bear and a peacock down in city park. So we have a long history with the zoo. I'm now a volunteer. I live about ten blocks from City Park, and I'm lucky enough to be able to ride my bike in good weather to do my volunteering there about.
Speaker 8: I won't tell you how many years ago.
Speaker 9: I received a degree in wildlife conservation from the from Cornell University.
Speaker 11: A master's degree.
Speaker 9: And so you can guess that this is very important to me. It's very honestly issue very close to my heart. And I think that the zoo has a big job ahead of it and is doing it now and has even a bigger job ahead.
Speaker 8: In wildlife conservation and in particular in.
Speaker 9: Conservation education. And the zoo has an excellent program already. And I think that the master plan that you're considering tonight.
Speaker 8: Will.
Speaker 11: Even further enable.
Speaker 8: Our zoo to do a.
Speaker 9: Really excellent job in active conservation, which it does here and abroad and in education. And I think education is so crucial because we're facing the kind of extinction we haven't seen in about 60.
Speaker 11: Million years if we don't do something.
Speaker 1: About it.
Speaker 9: So the master plan will advance both these goals. And if you look at it in detail, I think you'll see.
Speaker 8: Why the the.
Speaker 9: Education activities.
Speaker 8: Will be.
Speaker 9: Moved out into the zoo where the animals are, which is much more exciting.
Speaker 8: I have to say. So I'm.
Speaker 9: Urging you.
Speaker 8: That to.
Speaker 9: Approve this. And I would also like to.
Speaker 8: Say that we.
Speaker 9: Do have some.
Speaker 8: Outdated facilities that badly need to be renovated. And I would rather.
Speaker 11: Not.
Speaker 5: Wait.
Speaker 9: Ten or 15 or 20 years to do it. I think we should get going now. So thank you. This is a zoo volunteer perspective. Thank you very much for your time tonight. And I do hope that you will pass the bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Carl Waller. Good evening.
Speaker 0: Carl Worley I'm a.
Speaker 7: Long time resident. Denver since 1996 proudly living in District ten twin been in Congress parks and proud to be a zoo volunteer since 2007. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. The overall.
Speaker 3: Mission statement of the.
Speaker 6: Zoo is to secure a better world.
Speaker 7: For animals through human understanding. And our role in that mission is starts with the experiences our visitors have as they wander the grounds. Some of our facilities are old. They're are obvious examples of old school zoo design, and plus the buildings are in need of replacing anyway just because they're old. And so this new plan will not only.
Speaker 6: Replace those buildings, it will replace them.
Speaker 7: With not just a new copy of what it used to be of what's already there. And the new.
Speaker 3: And the new buildings and the new the new yards and so on will.
Speaker 6: Give our.
Speaker 7: Visitors much.
Speaker 10: Better experiences, much more.
Speaker 6: Richer opportunities to connect.
Speaker 3: With.
Speaker 7: Animals, too, and to learn about them and to inspire them to want to help protect the animals.
Speaker 6: And there's really.
Speaker 7: Looking forward to this getting off the ground. And I thank you for your time and your approval this evening.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mary Peoples.
Speaker 8: Thank you so much for this opportunity to talk to you. My name is Mary Peeples and I live in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Denver, and I've been a member of the Denver Zoo for over 20 years and a volunteer for the last two years. The Denver Zoo is a valuable resource not just for Denver, but all of Colorado. And I really appreciate the zoo's forethought to create a plan that's comprehensive and that's going to help them prepare for the coming years. The proposed building plan will allow the zoo to continue to be a world class venue. And it is and a credit to the city and county of Denver, and I request that you approve it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Laurie Galbraith.
Speaker 9: My name is Laurie Galbraith. I'm a resident of Hilltop. I have a son in Park Hill and a son who lives downtown. So we're kind of spread out all over Denver. I'm also on the board of trustees of the Denver Zoo, and I'm the vice chair of the Master Plan Committee of the board. I'm here today to strongly encourage the council to approve the building plan of our master plan. On the second reading tonight, having been a part of the creation of this master plan, I want to emphasize that this was a thoughtful approach with a collaborative design bringing together major stakeholders that had varied expertize in the zoo mission as guidelines. When the Denver Zoo with the Denver Zoo being the most popular cultural institution in the state of Colorado, I believe that this new plan will strengthen our ability to better serve our animals, our educational goals, and continue to serve our conservation messaging, which is really important to who we are and what we stand for in the community. I also feel that the zoo has worked hard to both share our plans and welcome feedback from the community through our website, which has been posted since February and our community gathering. The master plan will be important for the future of the Denver Zoo and as a focal cultural institution for the city of Denver and our state of Colorado. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Nate Conley.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, Annette Curry. Sorry, handwriting's bad. I live in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Denver and District ten, and I'm actually the communications.
Speaker 7: Coordinator for the Denver Regional Council of Governments here. And I bring with me the greetings of everybody on staff and appreciate all your support, as always as the city and.
Speaker 6: County of Denver.
Speaker 7: Probably.
Speaker 0: Do. It's been my happy, unfortunate duty to prepare the program this Wednesday for Dr. Cox 60th anniversary. And I haven't been around for all of.
Speaker 7: The 60 years, but it's pretty amazing.
Speaker 6: To look at the different changes that have.
Speaker 7: Gone on in this region and.
Speaker 0: Not just in the city of Denver, but but collectively along the front range. There's two themes that really have emerged for me that are very clear is one that we honor and continually strive to improve our cultural institutions as a region. And two, we've never been afraid to invest in ourselves as a region. So if you think from our sports stadiums.
Speaker 7: To DIA to the justice.
Speaker 0: Facility here to fast tracts.
Speaker 7: Today, you know, I would venture to say and this is a bold.
Speaker 6: Statement that outside of the Denver Broncos.
Speaker 7: I don't know of any other institution that is.
Speaker 0: Ubiquitous and and well-loved as the Denver.
Speaker 7: Zoo is.
Speaker 6: It has been it is and will continue.
Speaker 7: To be a safe and inspiring place for generations of Coloradans in the.
Speaker 0: Future. Recently, I've had the privilege, the past four years of working at.
Speaker 7: Envision Utah and Salt Lake City, where we're known as a.
Speaker 0: Public private partnership, that.
Speaker 7: Is, national leaders in our public participatory processes.
Speaker 0: And we've consistently produced meaningful public feedback and input for our stakeholders and.
Speaker 7: Policymakers in Utah. And I want to say that.
Speaker 6: As I've observed with the.
Speaker 0: Denver Zoo has done in the way that they have designed their process and engage the public, particularly.
Speaker 7: In the neighborhoods. I'm confident that they are.
Speaker 0: Listening and that the opportunity for the neighbors has been there and will continue to be there. I have.
Speaker 6: Also been happy to.
Speaker 7: Give back a small part of my time now as a volunteer to the zoo, now that I'm back in town because I love the zoo. And as I've gotten to know Shannon and her team.
Speaker 6: I'm also confident that their commitment to engaged, authentic public participation and dialog is there.
Speaker 0: I have no doubt about that. So I would just urge you to continue in the Denver tradition of investing in our region's future by.
Speaker 7: Voting yes on this. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next we have Katie Philippot and as she comes up to speed, a master for the next five speakers, which is Michael McGuire, Darrell Watson, Andy Sense, Katherine Coon and Jack Walmsley. You can make your way to the pew and can you and go ahead. You can begin.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 1: My name is Katie Philpot, shows Al and I am a Denver native and I have enjoyed going to Denver Zoo regularly for over 50 years. I want to begin this evening by thanking all of you for approving the first reading of the mass of this master plan and approving it. And I, too, am here tonight to encourage you strongly to please do this for our community and pass approval again for the master plan. The city of Denver has been an incredible partner for Denver Zoo for many years, and they have ensured that we have a world class zoo today in City Park. There is a strong history of building really quality exhibits and taking excellent care of animals and being a safe place for people to bring their families. My family is part of the 2 million people who have come this year and enjoy Denver Zoo. We have learned a lot at the zoo. We have embarked on lifelong learning at the zoo. And we care about our animals and environment because of our time that we spent at the zoo. My husband and I have been strong supporters of the zoo because it's expensive to have the type of facility that we are fortunate enough to have in Denver. And we feel it's our responsibility to give back to Denver and make sure that every child in Denver has the opportunity to enjoy Denver Zoo and to learn about the animals and care about the environment. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Michael McGuire.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Michael Maguire, speaking in support of the Denver Zoo Master Plan. I live at 6528 Mar Vista Place in Denver. I am in my 12th year as a Denver Zoo docent and almost 3000 volunteer hours. Why am I proud of the zoo and of being a part of it? One our citizens and our animals are always foremost in our minds. We love the enjoyment that we share with the zoo. Visitors to the Denver Zoo provides animals with a wonderful life through enrichment activities and regular exercise. The animals are cared for by a loving, professional staff, and they are exercised to have many enrichment activities and diets that meet their exact needs.
Speaker 7: The loving and devoted bonds.
Speaker 10: That exist between our staff and animals is one key reason why animals such as.
Speaker 7: Bertha Hippo at age.
Speaker 10: 59 and Sally, the orangutan at age.
Speaker 7: 52, live far beyond their normal species.
Speaker 10: Life spans three. The Denver Zoo is among the foremost leaders in animal conservation efforts. It provides staff and financial support for worldwide conservation research projects. A few on site examples include DTP dedicated to preservation of highly endangered Asian elephants and an endangered bird propagation center.
Speaker 7: Dedicated to saving many birds clinging to species.
Speaker 10: Survival for Denver Zoo educates and safely exposes millions of local, national and international visitors to animals, which is enjoyable, informative and innocent. An Essential Species Conservation Element. Five Through the Red Apple Fund, Free Days, Outreach and Other Opportunities, Denver Zoo provides affordable ways for families, school classes, nursing homes and assisted living facilities to learn about our animals . Six We are the only.
Speaker 7: Zoo.
Speaker 10: That has won awards for renewable energy, developing a practical model likely to contribute to green energy for zoos, botanic gardens, university campuses and other campus like.
Speaker 7: Settings in the US and the world.
Speaker 10: In summary, although we are not among the largest zoos in the country, many visitors, others from other zoos and also zoo regulatory institutions greatly respect Denver Zoo as a visionary, caring and trendsetting zoo that follows the highest standards. Thank you for this opportunity and for helping Denver to be a great place to live. I ask for your yes vote to approve the Denver Zoo Master Plan.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Darryl Watson.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Darryl Watson. I'm the president of the Whittier Neighborhood Association. And I'm very excited to be here tonight to speak in favor of the Zoo Facilities Master Plan and to ask for your support as well for the Zoo Facilities Master Plan. I live at 26, 25 Lafayette, and I've lived there for 19 years. So my family and I have enjoyed many weekends, many weeks within the zoo. And we know that this plan will add to not just the pleasure of neighbors attending the zoo, but also the ability to educate our youth and our children and will also increase just the viability of the the facilities for the animals that that reside at the zoo. I wanted to share two reasons for my support is twofold. First and foremost, we've heard a few statements concerning the outreach and the the robustness of the outreach about tonight's meeting. As a president of Whittier Neighborhood Association, I can assure you that that outreach was robust. I had more than enough time to communicate to my neighbors within the Whittier Neighborhood Association, and they've had more than enough time to reach out to Councilman Brooks and members of council concerning tonight's meeting and their support for tonight's meeting. I'll also add, as a former president of the Parks and Rec Advisory Board, I strongly support a robust outreach process for anything that happens within Parks and Rec. And I know that the zoo leadership through George Pound and Lori Dana Millar's leadership of Parks and Rec, that they did an amazing job reaching out not only to the community and the RINO's, but providing a process that was extremely inclusive. And I would state that their process was best in class. And I'll ask that city council and other committees that work within the zoo or within parks look at the process that George Pound and his staff put together to see how you can have a process that not only includes community meetings, not only includes the Parks and Rec Advisory Board, not only includes outreach by Internet and utilizing options for taking votes on where people feel the zoo plan should go. But they also did individual outreach to community meetings and to folks that they know didn't support this plan. They had a separate meeting for a group that truly has not been supportive of this and was inclusive to the point of including their input within that plan. I also want to add that as a member of the exploratory committee that Councilman Brooks has put together to look at a master plan for City Park dealing with landmark preservation and historic designation. I know that the steps that the zoo took is something that we can utilize as a as a a very clear process to ensure that we're inclusive and that we're getting as much input as possible. I strongly ask City Council to support this facility's masterplan. It's in the best interests of our children, the best interests of the animals in the zoo. And I think this process has been absolutely well put together and the community has been very involved. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Andy, since and since you have 6 minutes and I see see 3 minutes to you.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for allowing time for us to provide feedback today. I'm a resident of Park Hill. I live a 1621 Claremont Street. I'm a parent of two amazing kids and a very frequent user of both City Park and the zoo. I think we were both places in the last 36 hours Dustin Red and the Zoo on Sunday and stuff. And so so I have endless love for both places and a lot at stake, I feel like in both places. And I'm strongly in favor of moving forward to approve these plans tonight. The zoo has made an ample offer, ample effort to present the plan to me as a resident, I feel like and to my neighbors in a variety of ways. I've personally provided feedback to the zoo by email in. On social media. I've provided opinions. I've voiced my opinions at several of the abundant meetings that the zoo has provided. And in almost every case, I feel that I've had answers to those questions that have been satisfactory. So I strongly feel that the zoo has made every effort to reach out to the community in ways that I think in a lot of cases, quite honestly, some of our rhinos could learn from. And I'd like them to. So my family feels incredibly fortunate to live so close to a world class zoo. And I urge you to approve these plans tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Catherine King.
Speaker 9: Hi. Kathryn Coon.
Speaker 1: I live in South Park Hill and within walking distance of both the zoo and city park. I've lived in Denver, specifically Park Hill, for almost 15 years, and the zoo of most of that 15 years has been a large part of my life. I have two kids. We have gone almost every single weekend, although my 11 year old now says it's been too much, which I can't change and I'm unhappy about. But so that we've heard a lot about the outrage. I am a member of CPS fan, and even though I'm a member, I don't agree with anything they do. They don't listen to us as members. They don't seek outreach from members. They seek official comment, and they don't ask their members if it's okay to go forward with that. I feel that they're the zoo's outreach, including a informational meeting of the zoo master plan and a fan monthly meeting where they start their outreach during a PowerPoint presentation, which you've heard about, which included a map of the 32 buildings to be replaced, the ones to stay, and the ones that are on historic registry is am one ample enough for just that R.A. If not all of the numerous emails I've received from the zoo, the social media, also all the other information on the web from the zoo master plan that they published on their own website. It I find that people talking about outrage as not enough is absolutely ridiculous and saying that they didn't have 30 days notice is a flat out lie. Yes, it was brought to you recently, but it wasn't brought to me. In fact, the fan meeting occurred on February 2nd. If that was less than 30 days ago, I don't know how to do math. So also, as a mother, I'd like to get on to more positive stuff here. As a mother, I feel it's vitally important to increase the zoo's improvements and maintenance to allow them to compete nationally and worldwide with other zoos. I grew up in Los Angeles. Y'all have heard about the L.A. Zoo. It's fantastic. It's gigantic. I would like the Denver Zoo to be on that scale of competition in the zoos, in the zoo realm. The only way to do this is to do improvements. Also, the only way to increase education is by improvements over the years. If there are no improvements, nobody will come to it. It will also mean a decrease in tourism and a decrease in dollars for the city. And we all want to improve our city. And this is the major reasons why I'm standing before you and telling you to please approve this. And there is no need for a postponement. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Jack Wamsley. And as Jack comes up to speak, I will call the last four speakers David Airman, Deborah Collier, Angie Panes and Brad Parks. You four can make your way up to the front pew. And Mr. Wamsley, you can go ahead and begin.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Castle. Mr. President, I. I had a lot more that.
Speaker 7: I wanted to say, but I would be redundant.
Speaker 10: At this point. I think it's I had a lot of notes. So all I wanted to say at this time is, you know, I brought this book. It's the Centennial History of Denver Zoo. And if you read this book, it would tell you we've been here many times. This isn't the first time. And all the times that.
Speaker 7: We faced city government.
Speaker 10: It was always.
Speaker 7: Approved and the it was carried on to the millions of people that come and visit it every year. And I mean millions with a name because we have people from all over the world. I've been a volunteer since.
Speaker 10: 2012 and in the things that I do as a volunteer. I've met people from.
Speaker 7: Europe and all over.
Speaker 10: And so I urge the Council to make a decision in favor of one seven to.
Speaker 3: Thank you, David. Airman.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you very much. And members of council. I'm a Denver Zoo donor and a Denver Zoo volunteer. And I'm here to urge your passage of Council Bill 172 tonight. During the last few weeks, I've been making calls to thank members, new members of the zoo. And of course, whenever someone gets a call from an organization, they think, oh, they're going to ask me for money. But this time I'm actually just thanking them and I'm getting some great feedback. We have members obviously most of them are in Colorado, but I talked with a woman who is from San Diego's a member. She loves her San Diego Zoo. But her second favorite zoo is the Denver Zoo. So it's been exciting just to hear the kind of support, the deep support that we have from the community and from members around the country. That is fairly unusual, I think. Finally, my favorite part of the zoo was the primate area. I see so much of us in the orangutans and the gorillas. I see physical characteristics. I see behavioral characteristics that are so similar. And it is such a joy to be to be on the other side of the glass and watch them and watch how we watch their characteristics that are so much like us. And to watch the kids, the kids just go crazy when they see young Heskey, who's a five year old orangutan, go swinging around and tap her mother on the head. And then her mother grabs the rope and prevents her kid from flying off into space. And the adults love it. They they just really love it. So, again, thank you very much. I urge your support and a final vote on Council Bill 172. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Deborah Koller.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Council President.
Speaker 9: Herndon and all other.
Speaker 8: City council.
Speaker 9: Members. My name is Debbie Kaylor. I live in the Winston Downs area of Denver.
Speaker 8: And I'm here as a.
Speaker 9: Passionate supporter of the Denver Zoo. But specifically, I'm speaking frankly from my perspective as a passionate Denver public school volunteer.
Speaker 8: And here I want to zero in on the extraordinary.
Speaker 9: Work I have seen done by the Denver Zoo.
Speaker 8: By their docents and extraordinarily education programs.
Speaker 9: And funding efforts that go.
Speaker 1: On under.
Speaker 9: Their Red Apple fund, specifically for the many children in Denver Public School whose families rely on public.
Speaker 8: Assistance.
Speaker 9: I can tell you personally that the teachers in Denver Place Bridge Academy, and that's the school that I'm very familiar with these last years.
Speaker 8: Regard with with the highest esteem.
Speaker 9: The Denver Zoo. I know that goes on elsewhere among all public school teachers in Denver shows in sorry, in the public schools.
Speaker 8: I want to tell you that when I've.
Speaker 9: Accompanied children who are from in this case, Denver Place Bridge Academy, who grew up in refugee camps and are immigrants, and that is 99. Well, I should say probably about 70%. That's my guess of what. Denver Place Bridge Academy is. The trip.
Speaker 8: To the zoo is the milestone.
Speaker 9: Event of the year. And I know that's true for other economically challenged children elsewhere in Denver public schools. And I have watched with amazement, amazement as Denver public schools, as the Denver Zoo's staff and trained docents prepare special programs for the children and really financially put themselves out. The zoo does, and emotionally to.
Speaker 8: Make the whole experience for the public school teachers.
Speaker 9: And the children so extraordinarily rewarding. So in this case, I just want to emphasize that from a child's perspective, one who, frankly, without the Red Apple Fund and the support that city council provides, you know, in in giving funding or approving funding for the zoo.
Speaker 8: This is these are extraordinary lifetime experiences that I'll never forget. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Andrew Payne's.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mr. President. In the Council. Fellow council members, my name is Angie Panos. I am a 32 year resident of Congress Park and proud and lucky to be in that neighborhood. I have I have been involved myself at the zoo for 23 years, first as a volunteer. And I now have the honor of representing and managing the adult volunteer program. And my hat tonight is on behalf of those wonderful volunteers. I'm honored that the first time I should stand up and speak at a city council meeting, which this is my first time that I get to speak on behalf of the volunteers that are the life and heart and blood of the of our organization. One of our former speakers just told me that she feels the volunteers are the mortar that hold the bricks up at our zoo. And I love that analogy. And I will take that back to the volunteers later tonight. However, I just want to share a letter. There are over 560 adult volunteers. They are not all here, fortunately for you or we would be here all night. There are a number of them in the room tonight, some as recently as only four months with us, some as long as 20 years with us. We just recently had a few who reached 40 years. So we have a thriving group and these are their words. And I have 93 signatures added to this letter, which is about 20% of our group. Dear City Council. The Denver Zoo is a premier organization in our community. We, the Denver Zoo adult volunteers who have signed below, wish to thank you for approving the building plan at the first reading on April 6th. We would also like to encourage the Council to approve the building plan at the second reading tonight, April 20th, in support of the zoo's approved master plan. We feel that the zoo community way too communicated well with stakeholders and led meaningful meetings and outreach efforts to receive input from our community. We know that the 500 plus comments received on the website dedicated to outreach about the master plan were used to modify the plan based on community comments. Many of us attended these meetings and provided feedback in this process. We support the Denver Zoo's master plan and asked the city council to approve the proposed building plan. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Last speaker, Brad Parks.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name's Brad Parks. I live in the 2600 block of Bel-Air. Mr. Councilman Brooks is part of our our team there. I'm here tonight as a Park Hill resident since 1998 and happy to hear other Park Hill neighbors here in support of the zoo. So one of the reasons we are living there is the amenities of City Park. The museum, the zoo offers to our family. I've raised two sons in the neighborhood and have taken advantage of those resources many, many times. We're committed to the neighborhood. My wife is a DPS teacher teaching at Park Hill for a period of time and myself even serving on the PTA and the Collaborative School Committee. And I share this with you tonight because I'm also a Denver Zoo employee. And part of the reason you're hearing me here tonight is I'm passionate about our neighborhood. And part of the thing that makes it unique, it makes it amazing. And something I hear from the majority of my neighbors is what a great asset the zoo is and the museum to our neighborhood. We love the ability to have a vibrant regional park that's used by many, but especially we consider as our park. And the zoo's evolution in this new plan is a key way to help move forward. City Park in the city of Denver. So why do I share both of these? Well, part of it is I've had a front row seat to the development of this plan. I'm honored to have been part of the co leadership of an internal staff team that's worked on this plan to gather feedback, which we've heard a lot about tonight. And I'll assure you there's fingerprints on this plan from all aspects of our community, from internal audiences like our trustees, our teen volunteers have contributed our adult volunteers that were well-represented tonight, as well as members of our zoo membership and other zoo visitors. Part of the work that my team in our Education and Volunteer Services Department does is research with our zoo visitors. And so after Toyota Elephant Passage was opened and our guests were experiencing that amazing new exhibit, we were able to gather feedback from them on the experience and use that to help us then shape the new plan . And as this plan was in development, we specifically ask zoo users, our clientele, who some of which I'm happy to hear from tonight about what they wanted to see in the plan. And so that's what also helped shape this feedback and helped shape things that are important to me as the director of guest engagement, such as the visitor hubs, where guests in these buildings you're discussing tonight will have the opportunity to get in and out of the summer heat to take a rest, or in the winter when our crowds are a little lower, have a building to get in out of the cold as well, as you heard this evening, have the opportunity to increase our education and outreach to the community. The science learning that can go on at the zoo is an amazing resource to the city of Denver. And I encourage you through this building plan tonight to wholeheartedly pass it. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. That concludes our speakers is now time for questions from members of the Council. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to start with a I have three questions just to warn you, and I'd like to stop. Is Mr. Makowsky. Yes. Still here? Yes. Could you come to the microphone? Of course, I remember the testimony from December and what I wanted and what I thought I remembered was that you are part of the city park friends and neighbors. Is that.
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 7: That is correct. I'm the president.
Speaker 5: Okay. So my question for you is, has your organization, since you met and first learned of this in early February, have you taken a position on the building plan? Really, what this ordinance is about is three buildings, two that have the parking and a footprint. Bigger, bigger than 3000 square feet. One that's a tree house that's higher than 35 feet.
Speaker 0: The zoo came to one of our meetings at that time and they gave us a presentation. The thrust of the presentation was the design features that they were going to do to improve the ugly facade of gate 15.
Speaker 7: That everybody here.
Speaker 0: Acknowledged was somewhat in need.
Speaker 7: Of help.
Speaker 0: They briefly touched upon a few items that they're thinking about doing something in the future, and there was nothing in the form of a presentation about a master plan that was going to take effect and going to impact the park, the neighborhood, the zoo, the city for 20 years. Nothing like that was ever discussed. And they could talk all they want about about it. I've actually heard somebody say that it wasn't true, but they weren't at that meeting. So that's my state.
Speaker 5: Okay. So so did they tell you they were having a meeting the next night? And also at the end of I think it was February?
Speaker 0: Yes, it was in February. And I actually I spoke with Mr. Pond after the meeting, and he basically said that the other meetings were going to be a repetition of more or less what they did.
Speaker 7: They had a very nice slick show. Everybody got a clicker.
Speaker 0: Do you like Ivy or do you like trees? Do you like to be tall? Do you want.
Speaker 5: So you went to that meeting?
Speaker 0: I went to that meeting, but there was no point to attend every single one of the same.
Speaker 5: So. So then my question is, you've had a couple months. Has your neighborhood taken a position? And if not, why wouldn't you have.
Speaker 0: We found out about the plan in the newspaper on Monday before our meeting on Tuesday was the first that we heard that a plan was being presented to you for consideration on a 20 year plan.
Speaker 5: You were unaware of the council committee meeting.
Speaker 0: The newspaper was on Monday and our meeting was on Tuesday. That was the first that we heard of it from the paper. We did not hear we did not hear from the zoo.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So my next question, Mr. President, is for Lori Stratton, the city attorney.
Speaker 0: And any other questions of me.
Speaker 3: Will call you up if someone has a question.
Speaker 7: Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Speaker 5: And Laurie, I was actually the sponsor or the legislator behind the Park Building Plan, which is I said to Mr. POCHOWSKI was really about buildings over a certain size. And this is only the second time we've had a hearing on one of these. I'm going to ask you to explain the plan and any notification requirements rather than my trying to do it.
Speaker 2: Sure. Sure. So while I won't explain the plan, I'll let folks talk.
Speaker 5: About the substance.
Speaker 1: But I will explain the notification requirements. The Denver Revised Municipal Code requires that the Parks Department provide notice as required in a different, separate section of our code and in Chapter 12 of our code and that section of our code, parks was required to give notice within ten.
Speaker 2: Working days of their receipt of the plan from the zoo.
Speaker 1: And that notice was was not provided until last week. So everybody acknowledges that.
Speaker 2: However, that section of the code that requires that notice provides and I'll just read it that the failure of an organization.
Speaker 1: So parks for whatever reason or sorry the failure of an organization for whatever reason to receive a notification required here under shall not invalidate any action taken by the city. So it is it is a required notice, but it's it's more in the nature of a.
Speaker 2: Courtesy type notice because you can proceed to take action.
Speaker 5: I guess I was always under the impression that that out clause was a failure of someone to receive it. If it got lost in the mail, if it got lost in their email. Not an out clause for not notifying. But I see how you can read it both ways.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I think so. And I think that for whatever reason, is is rather strong language.
Speaker 5: So we heard testimony tonight that we should require more than ten days of notice. But that's not really the way this is structured. It's you get notice right after you get the plan. And that's probably going to be 30 days by the time it gets to council committee. I think.
Speaker 2: Dennis Miller said that Parks actually.
Speaker 1: Received the plan from the zoo on March ten. That's what I jotted down in my notes. But she can confirm. So, you know, my read of the ordinance would have then required that notice be provided. Ten days of parks receipt, working days off of parks receipt of that on March 10th. So late March is really the timing of what the anticipated notice should have been provided. So it wasn't provided to last week. But there is, I think, as you referred to it, that that out clause.
Speaker 5: Folks would have had about a month. Yeah, I think that's fair.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Okay. And one one final if I could ask Lori Danna Miller to come to the podium. Thank you, Lord. Laurie as a sponsor of the Park Building Plan. And that's when we added the notice to the neighborhoods, to the registered neighborhood ordinance. I have to ask you, how could this happen?
Speaker 9: So I'm not making any excuses for our failure to notify. I will tell you what did happen. A couple of things. Firstly, we don't traditionally do neighborhood notifications as a result of R.A. or as a result of zoning code, you know, mandates. We typically don't do that. But in this case, we did have that task on our list of things to do to complete the actual adoption of the building plan. And I will tell you straight out, our government affairs person went on maternity leave and we forgot to double check whether that was completed or not when we recognized that that was not completed on April 8th. We convened, we talked and we said, okay, well, what we need to do is let council know that we did not provide the notification, notify the neighbors. That happened on April 10th. We asked for a delay for for the public hearing to be delayed till April 20th tonight. We take full responsibility for not notifying per the ten day notice that's required in the code. I would say again that the language that is in that notification does not specify how much time is required when the notification is made between that notification and the public hearing. Could been ten days. It could been 30 days. Any of those, I think, would have met the intent because it's not specified in the code what that duration should be.
Speaker 5: Well, I beg to differ with you, because if you notify when you receive the plan, just the process, and maybe it doesn't have to go to Parab, but by the time it would have gotten here, it would have been at least three weeks as opposed to ten days.
Speaker 9: But I have to say that that was notification that we received the plan, not notification of when the public hearing was going to be, because it did go to city council committee and to probe and then to a public hearing. I just have to, you know, let you know that.
Speaker 5: Okay. So. So, Lori, can I ask you one other thing then? So. So we. Lori Strand.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 5: Sorry. Oh, yeah. So basically, all they have to say is we got we got notice of the plan being filed and not even mention the ordinance and what else is required.
Speaker 1: See, I left I left the code language back there. It does say that if they do know the date of the.
Speaker 2: Public hearing, that it should be provided in there. So.
Speaker 5: Okay. All. Thank you.
Speaker 2: At the end of the day.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Lord Denning, Miller, stay up here. So I just have a question about the prior process because I was I attended the meetings but I didn't attend the C fan mean City Park friends and neighbors meeting prior to the public meeting. So I was a part of that process, but I wasn't a part of the prior process. Can you talk about that a little bit and can you talk about I know Arnold's notified. Were they do they know of those meetings? Were there anyone speaking in opposition in those meetings at all?
Speaker 9: So the prop meeting took place on March 12th. And we have to remember that there's two different documents were referencing. Right. Our cooperative agreement with the zoo basically says that there has to be outreach about the master plan. And the manager, the executive director of Parks and Recreation approves the master plan. So at Proud, the majority of that effort was placed on the master plan because I was asking for input from Parab to give me, you know, basis for decision on adoption of the master plan. And then we have this other element, which is the building plan, which requires city council approval. And so at that meeting, there was a schedule that was outlining, you know, what the next steps were that we were after we got adoption because we chose to go through them kind of iteratively that we would have the adoption of the master plan and then take that element out of the master plan, which was the building plan, send it to council committee and then public hearing for adoption. So that was identified at the meeting. I don't know that there were any speakers in opposition or in favor of the building plan or the master plan actually at the meeting. But the agenda for Parab and actually if you go on our website right now, the building plan is on the website very clearly stated the zoo building master plan on there now. And it was prior to the meeting.
Speaker 6: Okay. And you know what? I think while you're talking and explaining that, I answer my own question because I believe the zoo and Andrew or Shannon give you an opportunity to come up and answer this question at every meeting. The zoo outlined the process. The zoo outlined exactly what meeting would be next, when they would go to grab, when they would go to committee, when they would go to the first reading, when they would go to second reading. And so although we, as Parks and Rec did not follow through with the notification, every neighbor who attended those meetings, 84 neighbors attended those meetings. By the way, the three meetings knew exactly the timeline. Am I right on the entrance when you got to come up to Mr. President and. Andrew Roe and government affairs manager for Denver Zoo. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for having me up here. Schedules of upcoming events were discussed and also put in a PowerPoint at every slide. I think something that we need at every presentation. I think what we need to remember, though, is that many of the first presentations we didn't know specific dates on when these would occur. We knew when the public process meetings would occur, when the online module would be released, and when potentially the depraved meeting would be. We didn't have specific dates, I believe, until the meeting on the 17th for committee meetings and building plan adoption after that. Again, we did discuss both the master plan process and the Building Plan Council process. At the beginning of each meeting, I believe you made opening remarks on the fourth about where this process goes after the adoption . So I wanted to make one note to Lori Dana Miller's comments about D prep. We did have one community member spoke speak in support of the master plan at that prep meeting. Okay, great. Okay. I have one more question, Mr. President. For for Laura Anna miller. Laura, is this is this hour our last kind of bite at the apple? I got a couple of emails today just asking, you know, for us as a community, are we just saying, okay, go ahead, go, go do it. You go do what you do. But what what is our accountability with the zoo now, if we approve this this massive plan?
Speaker 9: Well, I mean, technically, the ordinance lays out council's approval authority, which is the actual building plan of those specific buildings that are 3000 square feet or 33 buildings. Three buildings. Right. And so legally, that probably is your legal last bite at the apple. If this is you know, this is something that we fully believe is going to be a 20 year process. And any time there's any major building that happens at the zoo, it goes first through our planning department. It goes through neighborhood outreach. It will go through, you know, specific departments for review because it's a building that requires building permits. But the code specifies what council, you know, has the authority to approve or not approve. And in this in this instance, it's basically the buildings that are above 3000 square feet and 35 square or 35 feet. But I will tell you that, you know, there's there's definite desire on the part of the zoo and our department to keep the neighborhood informed. You, I know, have started the effort to create that committee that is going to work between the neighbors and the zoo and the museum. I know you've sent emails out to try to get, you know, folks to volunteer to be on that group. So I would see that as the Forum for Future Development at the Zoo as review through the neighborhood process.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and I'll address that in a sec because I got called out on that. Let me ask last question, Andrew. Tell me, did you do you do Facebook? Did you do next door? Did you get the word out that absolutely. We utilized all the options available to us. So in addition to specific direct invites sent to the 14 registered neighborhood organizations surrounding the zoo, fan being one of those that received direct invitations via email, we also use social media. We used our website, we use Twitter, we use Facebook. We also posted on next door and we were also our master plan process and community meetings were also highlighted on the front page of greater or greater Park Hill Community News in the March edition. It was a an article authored by Greg Davis of City Park Alliance urging people to participate in the process. And he specifically shared the Web address to the online module. So we really appreciated his help with that. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman, can each.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions, and probably best to start with the zoo so you guys can decide who to send up. But I want to kind of clarify some things. So you said that I had asked you this question right before the meeting, and I apologize. I've been asking a lot of late questions because we didn't have controversy around this until very recently. And I don't serve on committees. So this has been a very recent due diligence on my part. But you stated that every meeting you talked about the building plan showed the timing. So in the February 3rd meeting, which was the meeting that we've heard about from one of the presidents of one of the Iron O's, was there a slide that mentioned the building plan? So I thought you'd told me before the meeting that there was not. And then one of the speakers just said that you did show that at every meeting. So I want to just clarify, just when you can come up in answer whoever whoever needs to answer, I just want to clarify.
Speaker 10: Was no thank you. We looked at that there wasn't a specific slide with with that language and those dates on it. At every meeting, though, that topic was discussed and I think one of the testimony that you heard tonight was referencing one of the drawings in the plan that was looking at the buildings on our campus, some of which are historic, etc.. And and that provided a context in which for us to talk about the this dual approval process. So I do believe we we at least referenced that, that we were going through a process. And the direct answer to your question, though, is, is was there a slide with with that with that specific language? No, there.
Speaker 5: Wasn't. Okay.
Speaker 2: So it's just to be very clear then it was discussed at every meeting, but information on it wasn't visually or written presented. It necessarily was not and is.
Speaker 10: Not in every meeting.
Speaker 2: And then let's can we talk a little bit about the and this may be David, but the notices that you sent so email lists so was City Park friends and neighbors were the other Arnaud's did they get every notice for every meeting or was it like, you know, some groups got noticed, I mean, just trying to get a clear sense. So so there was one meeting that was at their membership meeting. But were there were they on a general distribution list?
Speaker 6: Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Councilwoman Kinch, we are not in the business of selectively sharing information or selectively inviting groups of 14 registered neighborhood organizations received all the same correspondence. I can produce emails evidencing all those chains and when they were sent out and who they were sent to specifically, all the emails were sourced via the city's website, where the registered neighborhood organizations organizations registered their email address and how we can contact them directly.
Speaker 2: Got it. So. So without getting into proving it all up, can you just give me an estimate of how many emails probably went out the list that sorry.
Speaker 6: Just to the list of the.
Speaker 2: List on the our notes.
Speaker 6: On invites.
Speaker 2: For.
Speaker 6: Specific invites for at least four inviting them to all three of the meetings. Keep Fan, the one hosted at the zoo and the one hosted at the meeting, and also an invitation to participate in the online module. And then a couple reminders after that. At the last meeting we hosted a bogie's. We actually provided child care at that meeting. So we sent out a reminder because we wanted to make sure that everybody had that opportunity if they had kids right after work.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. So another question. So this kind of slow up here, but I heard of I apologize to speakers that I was talking to the staff a little bit during the public hearing, but we are not approving the master plan tonight, so it's not in my packet as a councilmember, but obviously it's being discussed by everybody , which is a little bit confusing I think probably for the public, and it certainly was for me as a council person who doesn't serve on this committee. And so I did ask the staff to find me a copy of the master plan. I don't see the building plan as part of that. So two questions. One, why I, at least in my click quick visual, I don't see the same building plan that we're approving tonight.
Speaker 10: That that's correct. The exact building plan that you have tonight is referenced in the ordinance is not part of our master plan document. However, all of the buildings that are referenced in the building plan tonight are represented in the aloft illustrative plan, which is the which is the plan view of the master plan in that document. Further, furthermore, separated in the document is the existing conditions of the zoo and the future conditions of the zoo. Your building plan actually superimposes those two things into one building plan. It's really in some ways a confusing document. It's not something that we would illustrate, you know, put in an illustrative plan inside of our master plan.
Speaker 2: So I guess this is the punchline question. So I hear you that there are two different documents, but nothing in here that I. Sea has the heights and the square footage the same way the building plan was. So let me ask this question. So if I'm a member of the public who went to your website, is there anywhere that I would have seen the map that we're looking at for approval tonight?
Speaker 10: Well, I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: So the building plan has specific buildings labeled by size and by height. You know, just the three buildings in question. Right. But it has all of them by height and size. Is there anywhere the public would have firemen? They wouldn't have found that map in this master plan, which is the main thing that you were sharing with people. Would they have and I just tried to get access to the website so I could check myself. But would they have seen that same map anywhere on the website?
Speaker 10: On the website? No. But it was published for for the Infrastructure and Cultural Committee. And that's the that's the first time specifically it was published as as required by by this ordinance. I will state that building scope dimensions are are in the plan. Not all not always height again. That wasn't we only have one structure that's that's over 35 feet. But if you look at some of the exhibit projects inside of the plan, it does have square footage is there broken down so it's not a it's not you know, you have to do some math to understand the piece.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thanks. That's it, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Microphone as well. Is that better?
Speaker 1: You bet. All right.
Speaker 11: So I would like to ask first, Laurie Dana miller, if you could outline the steps for public comment that would be involved for any of the buildings that would be over 35 feet or 3000 feet for community input. Can you walk through? What? That. Process looks like.
Speaker 9: So let me just repeat your question. What type of input was taken on the building plan in a specific.
Speaker 11: That's not my question. Okay. My question is, if there if a building on the site is going to exceed the 3000 feet, I understand we tonight here are approving the building plan that identifies and you know, we've got the map here showing where those are. But if there is any building that will exceed the 3000 feet or the square feet or the 35 foot in height. What is the process for additional public input? In that approval process.
Speaker 9: So we we actually don't have a requirement per code for any public outreach. But I would say that because of the visibility that's happened around this building plan, any time there is movement on part of the zoo to undertake that construction process of that zoo, that we would go through a robust outreach plan, most likely what would happen would there would be some type of a community meeting or there would be notification of the rhinos, hopefully through the organization that Councilmember Brooks is starting, which is kind of the ongoing sounding board between the neighbors and and the zoo. And the museum, I would assume, would bring something to grab. But I will also say that that's strictly advisory. What the purpose of tonight is for council to approve those buildings, which is what was required in the zoning code. But this would be something that we would do as part of public outreach, you know, as we would do other types of public outreach for any major, you know, construction or changes in any parks. We have a communications policy that was adopted about a year and a half ago, and it identifies different levels of outreach based on what the impacts of those actions are. And this one, I would say, would be probably the highest level of output outreach, which would mean going to the rhinos, letting them know that this was starting and probably a presentation to grab.
Speaker 11: My next question is for Shannon. BLOCK Shannon, if you could come forward. You identified that there is at least one phase or one one project that is already funded. So can you talk a little bit more about that and then what your expectation is to involve more community input into that particular project? So that's my first question. And then the second is, what is the full build out the time frame, if you will, of the master plan that that we have a copy of here tonight and that has been presented to the community.
Speaker 1: Great questions. So the the first project being a new home for tigers, the reason that is the first project is because of the public input that we've received. The public in Colorado wants a new home for tigers. So it is it was the top of my priority list when I joined the zoo. But it's been a conversation the zoo has been having with the community for some time. As you know, sort of the the funding is always a question that comes up. And luckily this project is funded. And in this building plan in front of you tonight, we hope to great break ground on it as our first project and that's dictated by the public. And it's also the right thing to do in terms of animal care. And so that's how we arrived at that first project.
Speaker 11: And does that building exceed the 3000 square foot or the 35 foot high?
Speaker 1: So I'm not I'm not sure if it's in front of you. There's a picture of what it looks like to be a person in City Park. So if you're standing in the park and you're surrounded by some trees, you'll see if you have this image where our fenceline is. And then the height of the tiger barn, which is, you know, you really can't see it. So we're not talking about a skyscraper. We're talking about a little tiger barn where the tiger, when it gets cold, can go hang out. But what we've done and considered in the process is what the view from the park would be. And you know that the actual image probably speaks louder than than words. In terms of your second question, this really is a 15 to 20 year on plan, which is not uncommon for a zoo. You know, I always get the question, well, what's what's after tigers? And then what is next? And you'll see there's a couple of phase projects in there from Africa to coastal the peaks to prairies. And I you know, I'm not going to go through all the details, but after Tigers, the next discussion will be a conversation with public input, with input from the trustees of Denver Zoo, with input from our city partners in determining the next project. But like I said, the first project will be Tigers.
Speaker 11: So I was looking at the map trying to identify what you were describing. Yeah, I didn't hear you say. And it may have been distracted as I was looking at this if either if that next project on the Tigers will exceed the 3000 square feet or the 35 feet.
Speaker 10: 3200 square feet, 14 feet tall.
Speaker 11: Okay. And. In looking at what the next processes for public input is, are you looking at any additional public input? I heard Laurie outline what Parks and Rec vision is for that. So help me understand if there are additional public comments that you'll be looking for on that particular project as you move forward.
Speaker 1: You know, I think that particular project, we've already received overwhelming feedback of what that should look like. And the public's desire to have a new home for tigers were always receiving more comments and feedback. Honestly, if you look at our Facebook or Twitter, it's usually like, please start the new home for Tigers now, and that's the most common feedback we receive. But in terms of the public process that we already went through with with Tigers, I think the feedback we're receiving is getting done.
Speaker 11: So so I did hear that included users of the park, which does include people from the neighborhood and folks internal to the zoo. I wasn't sure if that included discussion on that particular project. In the public meetings you were having with the adjacent neighborhoods?
Speaker 1: I think that was a broader meeting about the 20 year vision for the zoo and then divided into, you know, the projects that are outlined in front of you. So it was a much broader, bigger conversation. But what we tried to do online and through one on one conversations and public meetings in every single way we could possibly imagine is to get more detailed feedback in certain areas. And then, as you guys know, you get a lot of feedback, right? We have 2 million people come visit the zoo a year. So then it becomes a question of how do you distill that information to make it useful and valuable? Because what we want to do is tell the community, we heard you, we're responding to you, because that creates the trust that's important as we move forward. And so we can go through more the details of you want, if you want of the feedback we got and the priorities that we found. But the number one priority was animal care. And the biggest animal care issue and that that we're looking to enhance is a new home for tigers.
Speaker 11: And I think that's a vital part of what you do in some of the calls and the communication that I've received. The I think what we're hearing is the concern that as additional buildings will be built on site, that may exceed. The guidelines that we're being asked to approve here tonight, that there is that opportunity for the community to weigh in. And I heard Lori say it's advisory only. But my hope and expectation is that the voice of the neighborhood and the adjacent residents will be factored in, along with all the other input that you get from many other folks who are avid users of the park to just ensure that that voice is being incorporated into the process as any of these projects over the next 20 years would move forward one at a time, knowing that there's not enough funding to go build them all out at once. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks, your backup?
Speaker 6: Yeah. I just wanted to I think we've heard from a president who kind of felt conflicted with the process, struggled with the process and so on, to get a chance for another president in my and my district as well. Come on, Darrell from Whittier. And so we're hearing that, you know, folks weren't alerted of the process, didn't understand about the process. Obviously, there were some there's a snafu within Parks and Rec. I just want to hear a little bit about the feedback that you all in Whittier have had with this process and also what was presented online and things like that.
Speaker 7: Councilman Brooks, thanks for asking that question. And I wanted to speak to to all of city council on this. There are quite a few registered neighborhood organizations that surround City Park. Whittier is one. I can tell you for all of those registered neighborhood organizations, including City Park Fan, the communication at their February meeting with the zoo was not their only communication about this process. They're members of City Park Fan that are part of our Facebook site that also are very much involved in the Whittier neighborhood. And we received several communications about this process. The neighbors that we represent, and that's from 23rd to Martin Luther King Downing into York. We don't feel we do not feel surprised by this process, nor do we feel that this process was not as robust as it could be. Would it have been nice to have 30 days notice? Yes. But living in a neighborhood and being involved with City Park and being involved with the zoo for all these years, this discussion did not just begin ten days ago. This has been a discussion the zoo has had with not just the Whittier Neighborhood Association, but what City Park West would call with South City Park. And a lot of the larger RINO's that you may not be hearing from as much as a much smaller I.R.A., that's maybe a lot more boisterous. But we have been very involved in this process for a very long time. So I can share with you it was on Facebook. We received emails. We communicated through all of the Arnaud's. There was a communication out to the District eight presidents about this. There was information on all of our sites about this meeting tonight, the extension, and as well as what the masterplan says for the zoo. So I feel as a president of the neighborhood and the feedback I'm receiving from the folks who live in Whittier, that there was more than enough information about this for them to be here tonight, as well as to be able to provide feedback to you, Councilman Brooks, and to the other city council members. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Rob Darrell.
Speaker 5: Mr. Watson. As long as we're in the process. Did your did your organization. I may have missed it. In your testimony, you saw us trying to find the building plant and stuff up here. Did you take a vote and take a formal position? And when was that?
Speaker 7: We are we took a vote on the master plan. And our understanding was this was a two part process. There was going to be the process that comes through City Council on the Facilities Plan piece, which is what's happening tonight. And then the total masterplan process was going to follow. We took a vote prior to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board meeting because I spoke. I was the one person that spoke in favor of the plan and it was at the Parks and Rec Advisory Board. So we our vote was prior to and I can remember the Parks and Rec Advisory Board meeting was. As it was before the March meeting at Parks and Rec Advisory Board. So yes, I registered liberalization, voted in favor prior to that.
Speaker 5: And the that was that was to go. Obviously you testified at prev if you were testifying here. Yes. Under the neighborhood or is yes. Zation ordinance a would want to know if it was general a general meeting or your board or and what the vote was in the day prior. I don't think has that same process correct.
Speaker 7: It was the board and it was unanimous and our board meeting, it's the second Tuesday of March. So yes.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, ma'am.
Speaker 5: Mr. President?
Speaker 3: Yes, Councilman Robb.
Speaker 5: If there are no more questions from council before you closed the public hearing. I would like to put forward a motion to continue the public hearing.
Speaker 3: I see no one else in the queue. So if you want to do that, go right ahead.
Speaker 5: Okay. I'm going to put the motion on the floor and then I'm going to speak to it. So the motion is I move that the public hearing be continued and final consideration of Council Bill 170 to be postponed to Monday, May 18th, 2015. Second. All right. And I will add I know it's in your notes, Mr. President, before I speak to the motion for.
Speaker 3: No. All right, there. We're good. All right. Motion has been moved and taken to go right ahead, Counselor.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry. Your notes tell us that people who have spoken here tonight will not be able to speak again. It's one public hearing. If you've had your time, you've had your time. We heard you tonight. So this is simply a continuation of the public hearing to make May 18th. And I'd like to speak to why I'm doing this. I'm not doing this with great joy. I actually wrote a letter to the Infrastructure and Culture Committee because I was out of town supporting this plan because I knew the extensive process that Parks had gone through. I knew they they met with me. I told them, as I said in the letter, this meets the spirit of the Park Building Plan Ordinance that I brought forward. And we've heard tonight great kudos for everything the zoo is doing. And yet, at the same time, I hold neighborhoods to a high standard of doing good process and good outreach and going through questions at public hearings. And sometimes, frankly, I'm not happy with a neighborhood process that has occurred. So I'm not happy when we are asked to. Have a public hearing where we didn't even follow our own process. So it's really hard for me to do this. And I suspect we'll have a little lively debate on this, because I agree that the spirit of the ordinance is there. But between the fact that council didn't publish the public hearing the first night said had been to committee cons consent on our agenda and the fact that we didn't give notice. I can't really be comfortable telling neighborhoods. Oh well, we just goofed. But you know, we heard from you and everything is fine. But at the same time that I say that anybody who testifies on behalf of a neighborhood at on May 18th, if this motion were to pass, I would expect to be very true to the registered neighborhood organization informing us how you made the decision, where you got the information, how your citizens were informed and when the vote was and what the vote was. And I think sometimes we've been a little lax on that. But I just you know, one of the things our citizens always talk to us about is process and transparency. And we don't follow our own ordinances. As the person who sponsored that ordinance, I can't close a hearing tonight and say, okay, I can, I can do it. I can vote.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Robb. And just reminder, council members now we're discussing and commenting on the motion to continue. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. You know, I struggle with this. I struggle with this because this is a this is an agency error. When the independent agency, the zoo, actually went over and beyond what their call of duty was. Their process was pretty much flawless. You know, if I'm looking at everything, I would want, you know, everything up on the map, which can which is going to be councilwoman. Each is going to speak to our I would like all everything online, you know, the whole time, if I if I could have it perfectly. But it was nearly flawless. The outreach was nearly flawless to the point I had neighborhood presidents and folks in my community saying, what's the what's the big deal? Why are you continuing to send this information out? And so so we delay for 30 days for what? What, what, what what are we trying to accomplish in delaying? Are we trying to accomplish more neighborhoods like Whittier, who already said that they they knew what the process was. They showed up to grab. They voted in favor, the board voted in favor. And so they did it. We did not see that from City Park friends and neighbor, which I'm shocked by, because they were the ones that I we all talked to Parks and Rec. We talked with the zoo and said, you probably should go to them first. You should have your meeting with them first, because we want to make sure that they're the ones who are informed and they know what's going on, but yet they did not hold a position. So I got, you know, I, I struggle with that. So because the city, which we should say, hey, that never should happen again, it's a bad process. Messed up. We are leaving an independent agency liable. I have received some letters of opposition and last night I received a ton of letters of Please, I can't make it. I have kids. I can't make it to this event, but please let this thing go forward. We have been to the meetings. We've been engaged. The zoo has been engaged. And so, you know, I don't think that I can be as the district representative, I don't think I can be in support of the continuation. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. And my colleague, Councilman Brooks correctly anticipated I would have to disagree that I think the zoo's process was flawless. I think you ran an outstanding process about the master plan. The website doesn't make mention of the building plan. The map for the building plan is not in the website. It's not in this document. And so I, I do not believe that those two things were equally explained in the materials available to the public. I, too, sent out the notice January, February about the master plan twice, you know, asked people to give input. So I do. This is where both are true. You did run an outstanding process on the master plan. Unfortunately, what's before us tonight is not the master plan. It's the building plan. And there's not a place. The website where people could find that. And there's not a place in this plan that I didn't have a copy of. You know, where where that's included. And so and I think both are true. You know, I think four emails at least went out to the Arnaud's and, you know, it was described to them that this, you know, there was a building plan involved in this and some Arnaud's got that. And we're at the later meetings where there were slides on it, but some were at a meeting where it was just mentioned and it didn't stick. And so. Ty goes to process. Right. If we have a Ty situation where some people feel like, you know, they understood it and some people didn't, and here's the deal. We didn't meet the ordinance language. And so, you know, we can agree to disagree about whether we gave ourselves an out somewhere else in the ordinance. But Ty has to go to process. If if we don't delay this tonight, I can't vote for it. Not because it's not the right plan and not because I don't believe in each of the cases that have been made for the different exhibits. But because if I don't follow the ordinance to its maximum, I just I can't I can't be that representative. I have to air on the side of it. So this is not about the quality of the plan, but I hope we delay because if we don't, I can't vote for this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. First I have a question of David Broadwell. David, I've heard from and David is our assistant city attorney. I've heard from one of our attorneys that there is nothing in the process that would cloud the legality of our acting. Tonight, I want to be sure that our entire legal team is on board with that. Could you please answer? Would anything cloud the legitimacy of our action if we were to deny the postponement and go ahead and take action?
Speaker 7: David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney I concur 100% with the explanation that Laurie Strand provided earlier and there would be nothing illegal about acting on the merits of the the building plan tonight.
Speaker 8: Thank you. If I could then make a comment. I understand Councilwoman Robb's and Councilwoman Canisius, concerned about the process of the agency, dropped the ball. A maternity leave is not a reason to let things drop through the cracks, as supervisors need to be on top of what their employees are doing. So there are I mean, there are no bouquets to the agency for that tonight. On the other hand, though, I heard I heard 17 people speak in favor. I heard two people speak, I'd say against. But in a sense, it wasn't necessarily against. It was concern about more that the the group that they had been promised in December had yet to be convened. And I don't know how a ten day problem corrects that. I don't know what to do about that. All I can say is I am very, very sorry that didn't come. I appreciate the fact you had quotes from some of my colleagues of I understand your frustration about that, but I don't see how that relates here. I didn't have anybody say, Gee, I don't want three buildings slightly oversize. I don't want one building too high. Nobody gave me any specifics that they were concerned about. And if indeed the neighborhood associations were to get together and I knew that there were concerns that people were going to be raising, saying, well, gee, should we be having a larger footprint? Should we be having only two buildings, I mean, some kind of substance? But we have spent well over an hour talking about process and ten days, not about what was being proposed. And I really do appreciate the fact that I see members from our Parks Advisory Board here, I see members from the zoo , I see volunteers, and we see other neighborhood associations. I mean, we have a chamber full of people, which is kind of unusual. Folks are coming here largely in support of this plan. And so I have no intention of voting to postpone it because I don't think it'll solve anything. I want to go ahead and adopt it tonight. Understanding and really appreciating the frustration of my two colleagues. I, I don't disagree with them, but I don't think a postponement will solve a problem. And so I urge us to deny the postponement and go ahead and vote on this plan.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Thoughts, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 9: Well, I think Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Said it much better than I could, but I.
Speaker 9: Would just like to.
Speaker 5: Echo her thoughts that we spent a.
Speaker 9: Lot of time on process, but all we heard was support for what is being proposed.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I hope the people in the room heard the key part of delaying this, and that is that you can't testify again. You cannot testify on May 18th. So if I'm one of you who took time to come down here tonight. And sit on those hard benches and pay to park. And I'm driving home. What the hell am I thinking? What? What. What kind of time that I waste tonight? Could. You can't testify again. You're kidding me. I accept your testimony, and I think we should vote on this really soon, like in the next couple of minutes. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I appreciate the testimony that everyone has given here tonight as well. But I am concerned that if people did not get a chance to actually look at the building plan, which was not available to people to look at on the website, we have basically a map showing that I want to make sure that people know exactly what they were being asked to approve as it was being brought forward. And I appreciate all the work that's been done by the zoo. I had an opportunity to sit down and look at the master plan. Again, it's a different document than the building plan. One of the slides that we have here shows. Exactly. How many buildings are being proposed to be replaced. And again, you know, this is a master plan. These things are subject to change. But my questions about what is the process so that as we do have buildings that may exceed the limit that we're being asked to approve here, that there is a robust outreach plan. And then it's more than just saying, come and tell us what you think. And we can say we had a public process, but we may not necessarily take your input and fold that in. And I'm not saying that's not what has occurred in this process of bringing the master plan forward, but to have people really know what that building plan looks like, I think is very important. And the fact that we have a map that shows that. I'm not real sure how much more detail in a separate document that's been filed that we haven't seen. And I think it's important that we know exactly what we're voting for. And I am concerned that people who came here tonight will not have the opportunity to testify if this postponement is successful tonight. But I think it's important that people know, including this body, what we're being asked to approve. I am concerned about what impact this has to the Tiger project. And Shannon, if you could speak to what the timing is of that as it was proposed to move forward once we got past this process. Can you just help us understand what the effect is on that particular project?
Speaker 3: Council I don't want to.
Speaker 11: Part it's part of my questioning. Am I being able to make a decision and knowing what the effect is going to be to the particular decision?
Speaker 3: This is the comment period we have passed for the comment period.
Speaker 11: We're speaking to the.
Speaker 3: We're commenting on the motion. So I I'm I'm leaving this now just for comments from members of council, please.
Speaker 11: Well, that's part of my being able to make a decision.
Speaker 3: I absolutely understand. But we've we've foregone questioning. So I would ask if you could just make your comment, because I don't want to I want to stick with comments from members of council.
Speaker 11: I've made my comments. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. I take Councilwoman Laymon.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I represent a district that's very far from the zoo. It's the far southeast corner of Denver. It has a gazillion children and it has lots and lots of families that go to the zoo all the time. I do a monthly newsletter that I put out and me and my I think it was my March newsletter. We did something about this whole zoo point plan. Do you know how many comments I had about this plan that said, Oh, tell me, oh, those buildings look awfully big? Or Tell me these this plan doesn't look very good or anything negative about this plan. I had none. They were informed. They. They did. The process didn't go perfectly. We've learned a lot from that. But. My fear, my district and the people in my district are very, very excited about this. And I think.
Speaker 1: That 30 days.
Speaker 8: And a map of what this looks like will not make one bit of difference to them. And so I will vote for this.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Lemon. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I do I do believe that, you know, folks came here for a public hearing for a reason. So they do they do have input so they can give testimony. And I heard to an opposition I was actually wondering 17 you know, when we saw the speakers, I thought to myself, I said . 17 in favor to an opposition. One person should just say I support it. Dun dun do. But I think it was important to actually hear from folks and and I do appreciate it. And, you know, the Denver Zoo is our zoo. It's the city's zoo. It's this, you know, I don't want to alarm Pueblo or Colorado Springs or any others. I mean, they have nice views, but. But ours takes the cake. And and and, you know, I think there is a lot of planning that's going to be involved. This isn't the first time that that that something is going to be constructed in a zoo. This isn't something that's being built in or on park land. This is in the zoo. And I think folks were clear from that, from the get go, from the start of the process, from the committee meeting. Yes, maybe there is some technicalities. But I think at the end of the day, we didn't come to, you know, come here to be dismissed by a technicality. And if there was that opposition. I think they would be here. If there was such outright opposition, they would outnumber the supporters. And it's not. Well, there's a lot of opposition out there. What matters is what's in here and the folks that are willing to show up and speak and present themselves. And I think this you know, this team at the zoo has been outright honest. They've been very forthcoming. They've been very transparent and almost got peed on by a lion. I almost did. It was it was ridiculous. I was able to really understand this plan, see it firsthand, almost get peed on by a lion. And just for that, just for that, I do want to support a supporter. I was zoo, but also thank you all for showing up. Even the folks in our position. I'm not dismissing, you know, I just think it's a it's a great conversation to have. But it's a zoo, folks. This is our zoo. It is a privilege to be voting on a plan in a city that run on a zoo. In our city. Right. There are some people who would die, would kill. There are some cities who would love to have our city and would take this controversy without a doubt, because they would just simply love to have a zoo like Denver's. So I understand, Councilman Rahm, your reasoning. You know, I think you you make a lot of sense. I won't be supporting the motion to continue, and I will be supporting this bill's passage tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments on the motion to continue? 172 to Monday, May 18th, to remind the council members vote of affirmative. We will we will continue the Republican one month. If we defeated, we will close the public hearing comments on the plan and vote. So. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Rob, I. Sheppard. No. Susman. Brooks. No. Brown.
Speaker 8: No farts.
Speaker 5: No carnage. I. Laman. No. Lopez.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 8: Monteiro no.
Speaker 7: Nevitt No.
Speaker 5: Ortega by Mr. President?
Speaker 3: No. Councilwoman Fox. Got it. Madam Secretary, please. Because I've only announced the results for ice.
Speaker 5: Nine days.
Speaker 3: For ice nine days. The motion to continue the public hearing to May 18th has been defeated. All right. So you know the questions. The public hearing on 172 is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I first address the comments about the NRC. Let's let's go back to December. I don't think anyone talked about a specific date that would we'll start this. I don't think anyone said that it would be prior to the master plan or the building plan. Matter of fact, it was very clear they said sometime this spring. Because we know that as soon as I got down to the community, I heard something very different than I was hearing in this community meeting. And as we sent the email out, it showed by the slow response from half the neighbors, Why do we need this ? What's the importance of this? I thought we had City Park Alliance. City Park Alliance is supposed to be representing us. So there was a lot of education that need to happen. As of last week, we got our eighth neighborhood on board. So we have our eighth representation. We have eight neighborhoods that are represent, representing. And we'll be kicking off our happy hour, if you will. Because Lord knows we need to bring some people together. We'll kick off a happy hour at the Museum of Nature and Science as soon as George Sparks can schedule it. I hope that answers your question. I am. I feel like it's a it's an tremendous privilege to have this gift, this jewel in our park, to have the park and to also have the zoo and to live in that tension is really tough. But that's why that's why we enter into leadership, is to deal with these tough issues. I'm not going to back away from it. I'm going to dove right into it. And I want to deal with it. And I feel like we have been we have been responsive to folks who said, you know what, let's get a landmark committee around this park to make sure that all of the buildings and all the proposed plans may be landmark, just like a civic center is. Our office led in that, and we put that together. And so, you know, I, I think it's important that folks know that we're working hard, especially in district office, to provide some balance because not everyone is unified in their voice. Right. A lot of people have a lot of differing opinions. But what we all can agree is that we are one of the most diverse, eclectic, cool districts in the city. Sorry, everybody else.
Speaker 7: Hey.
Speaker 6: And. And we have a park that unites us. We don't always agree on everything, but we're united. And when you go to that park on a Saturday, in a Sunday, you may be a little frustrated because of all those cars at the zoo from those folks from Douglas County are like, this is the best zoo in the state. I know I get fresh because I want to ride my bike there. But I just walk away and I say, my gosh, look at this jewel. Look at every great pitcher in Denver is from the Museum of Nature and Science, headed to the mountains. We've got the legendary District three has some cool stuff, too. But I just want us. To stop for a minute, stop bickering for just a minute and think about the greatness in which we have. And let's come around find common ground around the greatness and not around all the issues, because there's more that unites us than divides us. Now, you may not like what I've said, but. I just believe in humanity. I believe in this park. I believe in our assets. And I believe that we have an awesome opportunity to be great in the future. So, you know, I will be supporting this plan. I will be working with Shannon to make sure Shannon Black, CEO, to make sure that the development of future buildings and as we look at the master plan comes before this advisory committee gets on Facebook, gets on next or any kind of other issue, I'll make sure that George Palm makes sure that we have that map on there for all to see. And that's one thing that I can guarantee. And so thank you for all of you guys for coming tonight. Sorry for it. Taking so long to approve an incredible plan for our future, our city. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Catwoman Canete.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to speak first to the the merits of the plan and before I clarify my vote in a little more detail. So I think this is a really strong building plan that I am voting on tonight. And in particular, I want to highlight two things that I think were confused by some people who opposed it. There is not an expansion of the zoo before us tonight. The footprint does not change. And I see nothing in the size of the buildings or their placement that threatens the zoo or the park or the community beyond the park. So those arguments have not resonated. I see no evidence of that. And I think that this zoo does need to evolve, to continue to thrive. And, you know, I've been a dues paying member. I may have lapsed. I may not be one today, but I have I have a six year old son and we are regulars at the zoo. And I concur with everything my colleague and others said about in the testimony tonight about how very vibrant and important I used to actually have mixed feelings about zoos in terms of the animal quality of life. And it was really the education about the breeding and the habitat preservation that zoos have had an impact on. That became very transformational for me and understating the role that zoos play scientifically, aside from just being a great place for families to go. So, so I really will say that if we had, you know, continued this, I don't think that, you know, the arguments and I will say there has been opposition in the record beyond who is testified today. So we do have letters of opposition in our record. And I speak to them as well when I say those arguments have not resonated with me. So I have to vote no because of the principle. And I actually have experience with this because some of you may remember a year ago, I sponsored an ordinance for a zoning change for fresh food. I did nine months of neighborhood outreach for that ordinance and the exact language of the exact ordinance that was before us. And unfortunately, the city council staff missed a deadline for notifying our nose, even though I had sent the same meeting notice to all of those same RINOs. We didn't meet the letter of the law and I sat on my ordinance and we continued the hearing. All the proponents came the first night, just like tonight, and they spoke persuasively. And we waited a month to make sure that we were following the letter of our law, because that's a principle that I believe in. And and so I there's precedent for doing that. And it was hard it was hard for me to do it because I knew that everybody knew and I knew that they'd seen the actual language in this case. I don't know that everyone saw the actual plan because that wasn't part of the outreach in all cases, in the in the website, etc.. And the principle matters maybe not to the folks in this room, but I don't want to. Councilman Alvis Brooks's point about the bickering. I am exhausted from the bickering that's occurred in our city over change, over zoning, changes over, you know, changes of institutions like the zoo. And I feel like when we don't follow these principles to the letter, we only give air to the sails of our critics. And I don't want to give air to those sales because I don't think they're valid in many cases. So my vote tonight is in in that spirit. And for those of you who were here tonight passionately supportive, I hope you understand that principle and understand that it has no bearing on my wish for your success. And what I count is likely to. Be an affirmative vote in spite of my my inability to go along with that. But hopefully we will have a successful zoo. And, you know, a thank you to Councilman Brooks for the work that he's done to try to put together an advisory committee. Hopefully, that will take some wind out of the sails of bickering and criticism in spite of our vote tonight. So thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each councilman that it?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. First off, just to correct a technical error. Technical error on my part. I voted no on the motion to postpone this, but pressed the yes button so I would if the secretary could correct that in the record. Thank you. And turning to the second non-trivial technical error, there was a non-trivial technical error in the process for considering this building plan, and it's a shame that that non-trivial technical error occurred.
Speaker 10: Nonetheless.
Speaker 7: If if that error had occurred in a process that was meeting the bare minimum required for public input and public notification, that would be a problem. But this was a technical error that occurred in a process that went wildly above and beyond any expectation. And the testimony here is that so many people were involved and formed engaged in this process, including registered neighborhood organizations, that I couldn't in good conscience hold this up on a technical error, particularly when the testimony was virtually not just in favor, but even the negative testimony wasn't about the plan itself. It was about process. So the technical error is a shame, but I don't think it should hold us up in in moving forward with this plan. And so I'm going to be voting in favor of it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Levitt. Councilman Moran.
Speaker 5: Oh, thank you, Mr. President. First to go to which district is coolest. I will admit there's some great representation down there in Council District eight exhibited by your councilman's remarks. But I want to point out that Council District ten probably had the most people down here testifying because I figure the Park Hill folks were broken up between eight five and 11. So I really want to thank people who sat here and endured my great frustration over the process, because when people are doing things right, it just shouldn't come out wrong. I believe that we could have remembered the very strong testimony from tonight and proceeded in a month. I brought the park building plan and it seems like a big headache right now, but I brought the park building plan ordinance originally because I am a very strong supporter of our parks and I believe they are the people's parks. I also believe the zoo is the People's Zoo, but they are the People's Park. And the difference between the outreach that occurs as you're getting ready to go through with an ordinance and the actual notification that a plan is is filed, that's a notification that says to neighborhoods, okay, it's time to weigh in. And that's the piece that wasn't there. That said, I'm not a sore loser. Part of me is very glad that the zoo doesn't have to come back down here in a month and that we can move on. And I am realizing that my colleagues feel that this should not be continued. I am going to vote in favor of this tonight because I don't want anyone to take the impression away from this that the zoo was an error. This was the city's fault, not the zoos. And I don't want that being the impression that comes out of this discussion tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to say that through this process, a couple of things that I noticed. The first one was that. There was an expectation that this should be handled in a quasi judicial manner in terms of us voting on kind of zoning and land use, which we do. Because of the park building plan. So there was it seemed like there was kind of an underlying expectation that that should happen. The second piece that I wanted to say is that. It was the process that did go forward was as if it was a zoning land use with the extension of the vigorous public engagement that was done by the zoo. And so I just want to give those observations, do what you want with them. But I would just say that in terms of the future.
Speaker 9: For.
Speaker 8: Today, which is eight.
Speaker 9: But tomorrow or.
Speaker 8: In a few weeks will be District nine, then maybe there's some lessons learned in terms of how that group goes forward and. I learned a lot tonight because. There's big things coming forward in District nine in the future. For example, the National Western Stock Show and all of the the buildings and land uses and text amendments or whatever that are going to go on in the future. And I think that in terms of lessons learned and. The. Councilman or counsel for that district, that that's something that we're going to want to look at because they're they're very, very large. Not that the zoo is at the same capacity as National Western, I mean, in terms of land use, but in terms of public notification and how you handle these kinds of buildouts for the future infrastructure, huge kind of things that not only have a neighborhood perspective, but also in some cases regional, for example, the zoo and National Western. I will be supporting it. And I just want to say that this has been an excellent, excellent lesson for me in terms of, you know, you you kind of think you know everything. And the minute you start thinking that is a minute that you don't know anything and you have to start a conversation. So thank you, everybody, for coming tonight and I plan to support it.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say, I think I actually represent the best district. So we had two issues tonight. One was the notification concern and whether, you know, and how the deadline was missed. And I'm not here to beat up on our Parks Department for that process. And then the other was the availability and and access to the building plan for everybody that was being asked to weigh in. I have been at the zoo on many, many occasions, taking my daughter when she was growing up and taking my grandchildren there who just loved the zoo. And I'm excited about the things that are yet to come. I'm excited to hear about the Tiger exhibit moving forward, and I'm anxious to see that. Those changes. So that hopefully will continue to bring in even more people that want to see the changes. Somebody testified about their their child, you know, exceeding in age where they felt like they I've seen it all been there. But, you know, as these changes are made, it it rejuvenates that excitement in in everybody who loves animals and appreciates the care that is done by the zoo. I am so grateful. The fact that we have so many residents that live in the neighborhood, that are volunteers and and have this same passion and love for maintaining this incredible asset that we have in this city. And I think it is important to move forward with this. I raised my concerns, supported the motion to postpone, but that failed. And I don't think we need to hold things up from from moving forward. The votes are here tonight for it to continue to move forward. And I would just ask that the advisory committee that's being created, that as the meetings occur and discussions are taking place about historic designation of City Park, that it not be isolated to just the key people who serve on that body, but that there be some larger public meetings and the opportunity for greater input about what that looks like and ensure that others who are not sitting on the committee have the opportunity to look at what those changes might entail before that particular designation might be brought forward before City Council for Adoption. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. We heard some interesting stories tonight about various zoo animals, but I must confess, I was taken aback when a new animal was introduced in our discussion. And that new animal was a lame duck. I can't wait to see the new exhibit. We were told by a speaker that since at least six of us are, quote, lame ducks, we shouldn't even vote on this tonight, that we should delay it, that we should vote to delay and let the new council decide the fate of this plan. Obviously, I beg to differ. We have a lot of important issues coming before this council. Our last Monday night meeting is July 13th. Lame duck is not on our menu. We're going to work to the bitter end. I support this plan 100%, and I welcome to the opportunity to do my job and to vote tonight. And I will vote yes. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Any other comments on 172? Mm hmm. Seeing on Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 5: Brooks Brown. I forgot.
Speaker 8: I can each.
Speaker 5: Layman. Lopez Monteiro. I never.
Speaker 7: I'm going.
Speaker 10: To get it right.
Speaker 7: This time.
Speaker 5: I Ortega. I Rob Shepherd. I Susman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please collectively announce the results.
Speaker 5: 12 days, one.
Speaker 3: Day, 12 eyes, one nay, 172 has been placed on file consideration and does pass. Senor. The business before this body. Do you know how the business for this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 1: Denver eight TV. Your city.
Speaker 2: Your source.
Speaker 0: Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 1: You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.
Speaker 7: Made a pledge that.
|
Bill
|
Approves a new Building Plan for the Denver Zoo at City Park, in Council District 8, as required by the Denver Zoning Code. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on - -15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 3-25-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04132015_15-0201
|
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. We are off to our second proclamation and proclamation, two of one sponsored by Councilwoman Shepard. Will you please read Proclamation 201?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. In support of START by Believing Public Awareness Campaign Proclamation number 201 series of 2015. Whereas the city and county of Denver shares a critical concern for victims of sexual violence and a desire to support their needs for justice and healing. And. Whereas, in 2014, the Denver Police Department received a total of 1251 sex crimes reports. And these victims needs were served by the blue bench. And the Denver Health Medical Center conducted 350 forensic exams in support of these reports. And. WHEREAS, a national average of one in four women in Colorado will experience a completed or attempted sexual assault during their lifetime, and one in 17 men in Colorado will experience a completed or attempted sexual assault during their lifetime. And. Whereas, according to studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sexual assault is the most underreported crime in the United States, with 54% of sexual assaults committed not being reported. And. WHEREAS, research documents that victims are far more likely to disclose their sexual assault to a friend or a family member, and when these loved ones respond with doubt, shame or blame, victims suffer additional negative effects on their physical and psychological well-being. And. WHEREAS, the start by believing Public Awareness Campaign, a program of End Violence Against Women International is designed to improve the responses of friends, family members and community professionals so that they can help victims to access supportive resources and engage the criminal justice system. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council, in concert with the Denver Department of Public Safety and the Denver Sex Assault Interagency Council, supports the launch of the start by Believing Public Awareness Campaign this Friday, April 17th, and declares this day to be the start by believing day throughout the city and county of Denver and Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall at test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to the Department of Safety and the Denver Sex Assault Interagency Council.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Shepard. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 7: Yes, I move that we adopt proclamation 2a1 series of 2015.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Shepard.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much and I really, really, really appreciate our Public Safety Department for taking on this issue. It's a very, very important issue. The statistics that I have repeated as part of this proclamation are really startling that one in four women will experience a sexual assault and one in 17 men in their lifetime. Yet the majority of those are not reported. And that is largely because people feel scared, feel that they won't be believed, fear that they're going to be blamed, and you know that nothing will come of it or that they may be retaliated against. One thing that is interesting in the information that I've been reading about this is this because rapists attack an average of six times, one failed response can lead to five more victims. And that just underscores why it is so. And that when people have these experiences that they come forward and why it is so important that friends and family members and emergency responders start from a place of belief, they need to be treated with compassion and respect. It's interesting that when someone says my house was broken into or, you know, I was a victim of a hit and run accident, nobody says, Well, what did you do to deserve that? But that's what happens more often than not. Even in today's society when it comes to sexual assault. So what is also interesting about the start by believing campaign, it was started in Chicago in 2011, right around the same time period. And some other communities across our country have also instituted this. And two notable examples are Kansas City, Missouri, and also San Luis Obispo. And in both of those cities, part of it was a billboard campaign to help get the word out, which is very similar to what we'll be doing here in Denver. And in both of those places, once those billboards were out and widely seen by the public, there were significant increases in the in the number of incidents that were reported to the police. So it's clear that when we let people know that it is okay and safe to report that this goes up, and then hopefully that means that we catch the perpetrators and prevent future crimes. So, you know, I think this work is tremendously important. And I also want to say a bit about the Blue Badge. It may be one of the most important nonprofits in this city that you've never heard of. Actually, they used to be known as the Rape Awareness and Assault Prevention Group. They did start there. It changed their name, I think, about two years ago. But this is an organization that is very low profile but has been serving victims of sexual abuse for decades in our city and has brought a lot of healing and help and resources to victims who are trying to get their lives back together and and heal and move on. So I really want to thank everyone for their work on this. And I'm really glad that the city and county of Denver is going in this direction. And I'm very pleased to support this and ask my colleagues to support as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to my colleague, Councilwoman Shepard, for bringing attention to this important campaign and to our mayor for actually lending his personal support and name to this effort. I began my work in my career in doing anti-violence work with women particularly, but also with male victims. And the. Experience someone has of telling is, you know, very, very scary. And I think many of us think, oh, you know, of course, I would believe someone if they told me someone broke into their house or that, you know, they were accosted in an alley on the way home. But I want to challenge our community, because perpetrators are often people that victims know and sometimes their family members. And that's when it's really hard. Right. So if a child, a daughter, a teenager, a sign says to you that an aunt and uncle, someone you know, someone you respect, maybe a family friend, that's when it's critical. It's critical to begin by believing and help to investigate what's going on, because it is those cases. So many of these perpetrators, unfortunately, are people that victims know or where it's a dating situation. It might even be a boyfriend or a spouse who has perpetrated. And so these are the cases when it really is important to take the time to listen and to help steer folks to supportive services. We hope that folks report to law enforcement because that is the place where we can catch perpetrators. But even if they're not ready for that, having them start by getting the medical help they need and the support they need, and to help them make the decision about reporting, getting, getting that attention that they need. That's what I'm asking our community to be a part of. Even in these really hard cases where it's someone, maybe it's a coach, maybe it's a trusted teacher. But these are the cases where it's critical to believe. And I hope that our community gets on board. And I appreciate that we're having an open conversation about this because it has touched the lives of so many of us. If it's not you, it's a family member. And so the more we can talk about it and make it a safe space, I believe that we will make a difference. So thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Safety Department. And thank you to survivors for telling your story because each time you do, you help break the silence around this issue. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to chime in and then Councilman Shepard for bringing this proclamation forward and thank our minutes of from men and women in the Department of Safety for working on this, bringing this campaign to the public. I think it's really important for the different reasons that both my colleagues Canete and Shepard had said. But also, you know, as a man, I think it's important that we must make sure that our brothers are and our fellow man know the rules. And it's up to us to help keep them in check and to put them in check from going too far and from from doing that. I think there's a there's a culture out there that's that's growing that is very, very misogynistic. It's very macho. And it is it is frowned upon if you don't act that way. And if and I think, you know, our young people are subject to this and they're pressured into this, and they that brings us false reality in their heads and it builds that. And I think it's up to us to reverse that. But it's also, you know, I think, you know, yes, this this happens to to men as well. But I think it's very important that that men be taught how to be a gentleman and and respect women and respect members of the opposite sex. And I think it's that is a huge, huge part of it, although I know it happens to, you know, in reverse. But I think it's I think it's up to, you know, strong people in the community to help that send that message and also to to to publicly have the backs of victims of of sexual assault and to be that that rock and to be that support system and and to create that place of safety. So I really appreciate what my colleagues said. I really appreciate you bringing this forward. And thank you very much, Department of Safety, for building this campaign. I think this is going to be very successful. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. And I, too, am offering my thanks to Councilwoman Sheperd and to our police department, Department of Safety. I know this proclamation and the campaign in great part, talks about the cases that we don't hear about and the necessity. But I will never forget 2005 when the police arrested Brant Bretz after assaulting several women and children in my district and anything we can do to prevent in. I also spent a fair amount of time talking with the woman who owned the pet store on Sixth Avenue, who now is a victim. Advocate at the DA's office. So that sort of personal anguish gives me a heightened emotional reaction to this situation. But Councilwoman Shepard, I'm just so glad you brought this forward. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Rob. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, would like to express my appreciation to Councilwoman Sheppard for bringing this forward and the sexual assault unit in the police department that deals with these kinds of situations day in and day out. I appreciate the referrals to the Victims Assistance Unit to make sure that the victims are in fact receiving the kind of support and counseling that they need. I've served on the board of a nonprofit domestic violence organization, and when you hear some of the stories that people have experienced and sometimes how long they endure it before they finally reach that breaking point to reach out and ask for help. And when you realize the impact that it has to their children, you know, having experienced and seen some of the horrific incidents that they've had to they've been exposed to, is is concerning. So to make sure that the not only the parents, but their children are getting the counseling that they need is is very, very important. And to the providers in our community who also do this day in and day out and work side by side with the police department to ensure that, you know, we have resources for people to go to is just so important. And so to all of you who who deal with this issue day in and day out, thank you for providing that service to our community. It's it's so important and so desperately needed. One request that I have is that maybe at some point our safety committee can have an update on the Rose Interim Domestic Violence facility in terms of where they're at in the process. We never want to disclose the location because I think it's critical to the safety of the people who utilize these services, which is predominantly women most of the time. But from time to time, we've had male victims as well. But I think just knowing where they're at in that process would be it would be wonderful to hear. So. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments on Proclamation 201. Scene nine. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 1: Shepard. Hi, Sussman. Hi, Fats. I can eat Lemon Lopez. Hi. Nevitt Ortega. Rob. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you announce the results tonight. Tonight is proclamation two. Oh one has been adopted. Councilman Sheperd, is there someone you like to come to the podium to accept the proclamation? Yes.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I would like to invite manager of safety Stephanie O'Malley to the podium. And please feel free to introduce the team that has come tonight.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheperd, and thank each and every member of city council. I do want, as I accept, the proclamation for Chief White Commander Sonya's members of the sexual assault team, and Scott Snow, who our director of our Victims Assistance Unit, to please stand with me and accept the proclamation as we say. Thank you. As was mentioned, this is a very, very important initiative inside of the city and county of Denver. I can tell you all that often in the Safety Department, things tend to move at a glacial pace. We want them to move swifter and faster and of course, more efficiently. But when the notion of the start by believing campaign came to the forefront, there was no pause with regards to the time at which we wanted to accelerate and get the campaign kicked off because of the importance that we recognize associated with us. Start by believing each and every one of us individually can do that. You as members of City Council can do that. I wish that some of you could have been present when Mr. Matt, I believe his name is actor who was a victim of sexual assault himself, came to our kickoff and described for himself how empowering it was for his mother to believe the fact that he had been sexually assaulted and how that gave him some spirit to move forward to to get the help that he needed to share. But to have his mother believe his experience in the first instance, without hesitation, without pause, spoke volumes as to the criticality of each and every one of us. To start by believing will continue to put efforts into the campaign, will continue to put the message out via all types of communication mechanisms, including those boards that you all have seen, hopefully out in the community with real survivors of sexual assault, their courage speaks volumes. We want to continue to applaud them for that. And just think about it. The moment that you start believing somebody, you potentially have saved a life because when we don't believe things to the negative can happen and to the contrary to the point where people lose their self-esteem, where they don't want to be integrated into our community , into our society in a great way, in a healthy way. But if you do believe them, it again, it's a very, very empowering situation. And we want that spirit to be alive. We want it to be well, and we want it to continue to be supportive of victims of sexual assault. So thank you again for recognizing the work. And we'll continue to work hard to assure that this is an integrated part of our community.
Speaker 2: Thank you and thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd, for bringing that forward. That concludes our proclamation. Moving to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, please read the resolution.
Speaker 1: From safety and well-being 170 resolution approving the measure. Supporters of the Denver Immigration Immigrant and Refugee Commission.
Speaker 2: Moving on the bill for introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bill for introduction.
Speaker 1: From Business, Civil and Development 48 bill for an ordinance proposed standard, especially retail concessions basically between City and county of Denver Marshal Retail Group, LLC Zoning Concession at Denver International Airport 183 A bill for an ordinance for any proposed airport baggage system. License agreement between City, County and Denver. How do we is de Margo S.A. de C.V. concerning the use of certain baggage system facilities at Denver International Airport 184 bill for an ordinance approving the Post 10th Amendment to agreement on City and County FMB Concessions LLC concerning concession at Denver International Airport 185 Bill for an ordinance approving new post Sixth Amendment to agreement between City and county over CAA concessions of Colorado, Inc. concerning concession at Denver International Airport 186 A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed agreement for snow removal services between city and county of Denver. Aero Snow Removal Corporation at Denver International Airport 187. A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed agreement between city income AECOM Technical Services Inc., a cancer oncologist, data and development services at Denver Ash Airport from Infrastructure and Culture 149 Bill for an audience of Rooney second mandatory agreement between City and County of Denver Wink Associates, Inc. for design services to improve Confluence Park from Safety and well-being. 162 A bill for an ordinance approving and providing the execution post grant agreement between city and county. Denver United States of America because you're Brian White part a fiscal year 15 program in the funding therefor 177 bill for Norton's opinion pro-Second Amendment or Agreement between City Encounter and Denver Health Hospital Authority for Health Care and Developing School Readiness for Denver Great Kids Head Start Program.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Council Members, this is your last opportunity to call out any bills or the resolution. I will start at the top. The one resolution is not called out bills for introduction. We have Council Bill 48 called out by Councilwoman Ortega and bills on final.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in support of "Start by Believing" Public Awareness Campaign. In support of "Start by Believing" public awareness campaign.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03312015_15-0056
|
Speaker 5: Thank you. The public hearing for Accountable 56 is now open. Councilwoman Sussman, we need a motion to continue the public hearing and to postpone final consideration to Monday, June 8th, 2015.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I move.
Speaker 5: That we make phone calls.
Speaker 1: On my.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the public hearing on council bill 56 be continued and final consideration postponed to Monday, June 8th, 2015. The applicant has requested the continuance to allow more time to work with the community.
Speaker 5: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. You gave your comments. Were there any other comments you want to add, Councilwoman?
Speaker 0: No, thank you.
Speaker 5: Have any other comments from members of the Council on the Motion to continue seeing? None. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Sussman. Hi, Brooks. Hi. Brown.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 1: But I can eat. Lehman, I. Lopez. Nevitt Hi. Ortega. Hi. Shepard. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 5: Hi. Madam Secretary, please call the vote to announce results.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes A.
Speaker 5: Lebanese public hearing on counts about 56 is continued and final consideration is postponed to Monday, June 8th, 2015. There are no pre adjournment announcements, so seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 3: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 2: Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 3: You are watching. Denver eight TV's. Your city, your source.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property at 195 South Monaco Parkway from E-SU-DX to S-MU-3 in Council District 5. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 195 South Monaco Parkway from E-SU-DX to S-MU-3 in Council District 5. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-4-15
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03162015_15-0167
|
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 167 is recognizing the 41st annual Denver March. POWELL And it reads, whereas the 41st annual Denver March powwow will be held Friday, March 20th through Sunday, March 22nd, 2015, at the Denver Coliseum. And. Whereas, activities at the powwow will include traditional tribal storytelling, contemporary hip hop presentations, empowering youth and educating listeners with a message of hope, dancing, drumming, and the opportunity to purchase authentic Native American arts and crafts and delicious Indian fry bread by Northern Colorado Tribal Powwow Association. And Where is Indiana University and Kelley School of Business? MBA delegates will be in attendance to visit with Denver March Powwow Board of Directors and Tribal Artisans for the Natives Go Global Project initiated by the Rocky Mountain Indian Chamber of Commerce. And. Whereas, the annual Powell is an important event for the region's Indian people, making a powerful contribution to passing their cultural heritage from one generation to the next. Maintaining pride in their heritage and promoting cultural awareness of the Native American people of the general public. Now, therefore, be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council hereby designates the days of March 20th, 21st and 22nd of 2014 as Denver Native American Cultural Days. In honor of the many Native Americans who make their home in our Denver region, Section two that the Council recognizes the occasion of the 41st Annual March powwow and commends members of the Powell Committee for their efforts to make the event a cultural and educational success for the Denver community. Section three that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and effect the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the Mar Powell Committee President Ken LeDoux.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the proclamation 166 be adopted second 167.
Speaker 3: He said six 167 Oh, we got it. It has been moved.
Speaker 5: And that was Councilman Lupe Proclamation when 67.
Speaker 3: Has been moved and second it comments. Councilwoman Montero.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. As many of you know, Denver is a home of many as as many 80 American Indian tribes are represented by residents of the Denver area. The original inhabitants of the area that is now Colorado include the Apache Nation Nation, the Arapaho Nation, the Cheyenne Nation, the Pueblo tribes and the Shoshone tribe and the Ute Nation. Other Indian tribes whose territory sometimes extended to and into Colorado included the Comanche tribe, Kiowa tribe and the Navajo tribe. Annual events at the powwow include the introduction of the power royalty, the royalty procession, the beginning of the song A Living Hoop and a coronation of the March Powwow Princess. The power will be held again in District nine at the Denver Coliseum at 4600 Humboldt Street this weekend on March 20/20, 21st and 22nd. Admission is $7 a day and $20 for a three day pass. 66 and under are free and the senior rate is $3 a day. So I'm very, very happy to be able to sponsor this this proclamation for the 41st year of the powwow. And I would encourage all of my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: I'd like to add my name to this one as well. I want to congratulate Ken and the Powell Committee for so many years. Ken, I'm not sure how long you've been doing it. You can let us know when you come up. But I know when I was the council person of the district where the Coliseum is worked to bring this forward on many occasions. And I just want to commend you, because I think this is truly an opportunity for people who have not really followed the the history and the tradition of our Native American cultures and how it continues to be passed on from generation to generation. The other thing I wanted to share is I don't know how many people realize that a number of our streets in the Platte Valley and Lower Downtown were actually named after some key native chiefs or their wives, such as Little Raven, Wayne, Coop, Woollahra. So, you know, the history lives on and I'm proud to add my name to the resolution and just want to say thank you to Ken in the March Powell Committee for continuing to put all the work into making this happen every year. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I would also like to ask that my name be added to this proclamation as a sponsor. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Any other comments on proclamation 167. Scene on Madam Secretary Raquel.
Speaker 4: Montero.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Nevitt i Ortega I Rob Shepherd I Susman Brooks Brown I futz I can each layman i lopez i nevett.
Speaker 9: My little voting client thing has decided to go on holiday, so you'll just have to leave early.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary, please close the very nasty results. 3939 167 has been adopted. Councilman Monteiro, is there someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. Mr. Ken LeDoux, if you could come up to the podium.
Speaker 6: This is the second time. Good evening. To answer Debbie's question. How many times have come here? I've been president of the powwow for 27 years, and I've been involved with the committee for 36 out of the 41 years. So it's been a nice time. I've seen a lot of the faces change here. And so with the commission, I think the intent of the committee from its very origin still stays the same. This did start as a youth power and to recognize what youth could do as far as learning their culture and present. It was mentioned that, you know, more than 80 tribes lived here. And a great deal of these people did come in the fifties as there was a relocation program. So in addition to the tribes that also were residing in this area, a lot of other ones came to this area for education, employment and other areas. It became their home and is still the home for a lot of a lot of the people here. There is this is one of the areas where there is a large Indian population. And during this weekend, it grows even larger. This is one of the major events in the United States in terms of a cultural event. Not only is it an event that showcases the variety of culture that exists, but also the crafts that these people make that are a part of this country. It is something that not only the tribal people, but the people of Denver can be proud of because there is only one Denver March power and it happens every march. And it's something that I know that will continue on long after I pass on. I know that my wife, who's here with me, has devoted a lot of time to make sure that I get here on time for different things. And that's true for a lot of live events. Mothers and wives often. Often times are overlooked, but yet they provide the foundation. And that is a part of Indian culture that oftentimes is not properly recognized. Often you look at the warriors, but there are women warriors. And at this time, you know that something to be thankful for. But I'd like to thank all of you who come at this time for the proclamation. And I do hope that you do take time to come and look at the event. And attend and see what's there. But if you're not able to, you know, one of the through the modern technology, we now stream this to not only the local area, but all over the world. Because one of the things. Tribal members, you know, have always been a part of the military. And we have a lot of our members who take this opportunity to see what's going on. One of my grandsons, who was one of my good volunteers for a number of years dealing with the arts and crafts, I think currently is stationed in Hawaii. So usually at the power usually will give him a hello. And surprisingly, he does respond back. So it's something that the city and the county can be extremely proud of because there's only one coliseum and there's only one. Denver much power. And I brought some information here for for you to take a look at. So I hope to see all of you there. And again, thank you very much.
Speaker 3: I thank you and thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro, for that. All right. We are ready for the resolutions. Madam Secretary, would you please read the resolutions.
Speaker 4: From safety and well-being 116 resolution approving the mayor's appointment, the Denver Preschool Program Board of Directors. 119 Resolution approving the mayor's appointment to the Denver Latino Commission.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Bill, for introduction. Will you please read the bill for.
Speaker 4: Introduction from Business Development? 113 A Bill for an ordinance proposed software maintenance agreement between City under CGI Technologies and Solutions Inc. related to software maintenance and support at Denver International Airport. 114 A bill for an ordinance pre and post agreement between City and county of her signature Technologies Inc. related to configuration and supporting software systems at Denver
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the 41st Annual Denver March Pow Wow.
A proclamation recognizing the 41st Annual Denver March Pow Wow.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03162015_15-0083
|
Speaker 3: Quest Broadband Services Inc, also known as CenturyLink, granting a non-inclusive cable television franchise. Councilman Brown, will you please put Council Bill eight three on the floor to be ordered published?
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: A move the council bill 83 be ordered published.
Speaker 3: It has been moved in second in a public hearing for council bill 83 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name's Frank. The tone of the chief information officer for the city and county of Denver. Thank you for having me. Tonight, we're going to discuss the the CenturyLink Cable Television Franchise Agreement. This agreement is very similar to the existing franchise agreement that exists today with Comcast that was signed by Mile High Cable back in 1984. With the exception of one fairly significant difference, the things that are identical provision wise, the terms of the agreement are ten years, the amount of franchise fees is 5% of gross revenues. The amount of the peg fees is a dollar five per customer per month. Administration and regulation of the franchise are the same. Customer service standards are the same and franchise violations are the same. So I will now move on to the piece that is relatively significant between the two. The agreement that was signed back in 1984 was for the service availability piece of it was for universal coverage, which meant coverage throughout the entire city and county of Denver. The the the agreement that's here tonight is not that way. It's actually an agreement that is based on market penetration and market success. So how that would look, this agreement sort of started out actually this agreement to understand what we are trying to do here. We have a term that I need to explain, which is a remote terminal, a remote terminal as a way to provide service to homes and residents. A remote terminal is a point which is a distributor of the service and a can service in any given neighborhood, up to 4 to 500 living units. So how this service available ability breaks out within two years. CenturyLink must offer service to at least 15% of all living units within the city and county of Denver. But they must also offer at least one RTA, which is that remote terminal that I just mentioned in each of the 11 Council districts. So that 15% cannot start in one area and grow from there. It has to be distributed throughout the entire city, a county of Denver by at least one remote terminal per district. So 15% would be roughly about 44,000 living units within the first two years. Market penetration is the metric that is used for moving forward with the with further expansion. And how that works is if you have 100 homes and you provide service to 28 of those homes, then you are at 28% of your service availability footprint. The agreement today states that once CenturyLink reaches 27 and a half percent, then they would need to, after two years, continue to grow their footprint by at least one additional R.T. and every council district. There's also a piece in there. If at any point in time CenturyLink becomes the primary service provider and with a majority of 50% of market penetration, then they will then provide universal service to all of city and county of Denver. There's also a language in there about nondiscrimination, and it prohibits them from discriminating against any neighborhood on the basis of income. There's also a language that states they guarantee to commit a significant portion of their investment, which will be targeted to areas below the median income of the city. Within each of these authorities. They will also have to provide service. They must also cover one school or library, and that goes on for each of the two years going forward. How this will be monitored is through transparency within the language of the contract. CenturyLink needs to provide on demand to the city their existing service availability footprint and what their market is today. And then that will be monitored and monitored by the city. Quarterly There will be meetings with CenturyLink to look at their progress and to review that. And we also have members of CenturyLink that are here today, if you have any questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. de Novo. David, your name was listed as staff. Did you have anything you wanted to add for the presentation? Mr. Broadwell.
Speaker 13: David Broadwell. Assistant City Attorney. I'll just answer questions as they arise.
Speaker 3: Great. I thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Mr. President, members of council. My name is Jim Campbell. I'm the regional vice president for Regulatory and legislative affairs for Central Bank. Thank you so much for having us here tonight. I'm not going to repeat what Frank said. I think he did a good job of describing what's in the agreement. I would note that the requirement to add in a remote term, I think is actually a one year, not two years. So we would have to do it within one year of hitting those market penetration rates. I would be remiss if I didn't think staff for their hard work over the last nine months, they've been incredibly diligent throughout this process and David and Frank at all times had the interests of the residents of the city of Denver at first and foremost at their hearts. I also want to thank all the members of Council for participating in the committee process. Those of you that aren't on the committee were there, and I appreciate your willingness to listen to us, to us as we made our presentation. This is pretty exciting. For the first time in over 40 years, you're actually have an application from a company that's going to make a significant investment to bring to bring cable competition to Denver. And it's the residents of Denver that benefit from this. I think the studies have shown throughout the country that the incumbent operators generally behave a little bit better when you have a wireline facilities based competitor. And that's exactly what we intend to bring. We're obviously very excited about the opportunity to make this investment here right in the city of Denver. I can tell you that it's this is about innovation. This is about jobs, it's about investments. So, again, we asked for your your favorable support of this application. And I will be here to answer any questions you might have. So thank you very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you. We have 12 speakers signed up for this today. We have seven in favor, five against. And I'm going to call the first five. You can make your way up to the first pew. Patrick Byrne, David Briggs, Cynthia Wake, Jason Peck and Sara Randall. You five can make your way up and Mr. Barron, you can go ahead and begin your remarks. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 6: Well. Good afternoon. Members of council. My name is Patrick Byrne. I live at 1196 Grant Street in Council District ten. Speaking on behalf of myself tonight.
Speaker 10: I'm a current customer of.
Speaker 6: The existing franchise holder and don't have anything.
Speaker 10: Particularly bad.
Speaker 6: To say about them tonight. But I just want to encourage you all to vote in support of Council Bill 83 that will provide some competition to benefit all of the consumers here in Denver. Allowing a second franchisee will lead to competition in products, pricing, bundling and customer service. And I think everyone benefit from that. And from what you all just heard tonight, I think the build out terms have been really thoughtfully done and I think they'll be very fair and equitable. So with that, I would ask for your support. And thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 3: David Briggs.
Speaker 12: Good evening. My name is David Briggs and I live in the area on 4933 Durham Court. I'm all for competition, but how do I know I'll get Centrelink service in my area? And if not, how is that competition? I understand the Comcast was required to serve the entire city within three years. What is the time table for CenturyLink? For the contract as it seems vague on obligations to serve the entire city. And it seems that this council is not requiring CenturyLink to serve all of the within and defined time period. When will they come to my area? And what says they have?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Briggs. Cynthia Wake.
Speaker 8: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Cynthia Wake and I reside at 3779 William Street, Denver. I am a CenturyLink employee as well as the president of the Cole Neighborhood Association. Cole, of course, is located in the Great Eight, as Councilman Brooks always affectionately refers to us. I just wanted to express my support for Council Bill 83. As a resident of Denver as well as a CenturyLink employee, we're really excited about being able to offer innovative products to the residents of Denver and provide a choice other than cable or satellite service, which are really your only two options for television service right now in Denver. Satellite is somewhat cumbersome and not available to every resident. If you can't get satellite, especially if you're in a multi dwelling unit where there's some other restrictions, you really only have one choice, which is cable. So I would like to express my excitement and support for the bill, not only to make my job a little bit easier as well to provide choice to the residents of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This week. Jason pick.
Speaker 6: Thank you. My name's Jason Peck. 901 Area.
Speaker 10: Parkway, Denver 80204.
Speaker 6: Just want to bring briefed background on this. I have testified on this issue in other cities as CenturyLink is going to.
Speaker 10: Other cities around Denver. I'm a realtor and there are some.
Speaker 6: Concerns I have specifically about this franchise agreement.
Speaker 10: Obviously, technology's very, very.
Speaker 6: Important to people who are looking to purchase within the city of Denver.
Speaker 10: They have lots of questions and this.
Speaker 6: Franchise agreement is very vague when it comes to the availability. I'm all for market competition.
Speaker 10: Okay. But I think.
Speaker 6: That the city of Denver can do better than this franchise agreement that's put in.
Speaker 10: Front of you.
Speaker 6: With that being said, the one thing I have been able to tell them, like in affluent areas, that's the first place that CenturyLink is going to go. They're going to set up in affluent areas like this gentleman here. He's probably not going to get it or he might get it. But setting up a router and each district doesn't necessarily the the citizens that should be getting the service are going to be getting the service, but they're going to be setting up in flow in areas.
Speaker 10: I want to express the concern that Denver really.
Speaker 6: Didn't do that good of a job in negotiating this franchise agreement as I've gone to other cities talking about these same concerns. It's the same agreement. You guys.
Speaker 0: Shit. You're the biggest city.
Speaker 6: You're the big dog. You should be getting a better franchise agreement. Now, while this promote equity initial build up, I did watch some of the city council meetings in regards to this. And I'm just there's just some significant concerns about this franchise agreement. And I know that a lot of you were in favor of it from that standpoint. But one thing that does make me nervous is that CenturyLink basically came out and said, well, we don't want to set a precedent.
Speaker 10: As we negotiate with other cities with giving you guys something that we might not be giving to other cities. And that's a concern to me. So most importantly, I just.
Speaker 6: Want to thank you for your time. I'm here for the little guy. I'm here for the person that might be working a second job tonight.
Speaker 10: That doesn't necessarily come here.
Speaker 6: Have a voice and I thought was important. They speak on this tonight. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Peck. Sarah Randall. And as Sarah comes up, I want to call the next five speakers Sharon Alexander Holt, Jack Kroll, Brigitte Alexander, Naomi Ramirez, and Reverend Patrick Demmer. You can come up to the first pew. And Ms.. Randall, you can go ahead and begin your comment.
Speaker 1: Hi, my name is Sarah Randall. I live in Uptown on 1801 Pennsylvania Street. I would really like to have the option for CenturyLink Cable. I think a city as forward thinking and innovative as Denver, we should thrive on competition and the drive to create better options for our community. When there is more competition, I'll have the opportunity to have improved customer service. I only have 3 minutes. I do not have the time to talk about my customer service. Problems with Comcast and Comcast consistently ranks at the bottom of of good customer service. I value competition and I do want to live in a city where, ah, I value competition and I want to live in a city where our council members do as well. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Randall. Sharon Alexander Holt.
Speaker 8: Hello. My name is Sharon Alexander Holt, and I'm pleased to be here. Thank you for Mr. President and city council members. I'm the former CEO of the Urban League of Metropolitan Denver, a concerned community citizen. And currently I work with the in a position where I have a radio program that I co-host every Sunday that deals with the community, a Christian community of ventilation and education. And so I'm here because I'm concerned about, again, our community and properly being able to represent the concerns we have as we ventilate about some of the language in the contract. Well, what's good is that there's some build out going on. My concern is that the build out is not hitting the inner city the way that it should. And then there's language like significant. What does that really mean when you begin to divine what is significant mean? When will that happen? When do you feel there's a significant amount of the territory that is viewing our on the system that they would go to next level? Those are teams right now hold around what, 500 you said and maybe over two years to be a thousand. But when does that guarantee in the inner city, the communities that they too will have that build up? My concern again, because of my past and the hats that I wear, is our communities being forgotten. Are we forgetting about those neighborhoods and we're hitting more the fluent, which always goes back to that concern about redlining. And I want to eliminate that. So I'm just asking that you go back, look at the language in the contract, reevaluate it, just don't accept it as is when is there. But we need some allocated times, we need some definitive times. And that just randomness of is going to happen when we reach those numbers. When it took others like Comcast a few years to get to those numbers and our children don't have those kind of years on their side. So I ask that you consider that, and I would like to really see that a more guaranteed build out is given to us. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Miss Alexander Holt. Jack Kroll. Good evening. My name is Jack Kroll. Thank you for your time. I reside at 2307 Ivy Street. I'm here to speak in favor of this bill. I think it will improve the competition in our city.
Speaker 10: It will bring an upgrade to current.
Speaker 3: Communication infrastructure in certain areas as well, and over time to many more areas. And this is going to continue to make Denver a popular place to live for young people moving to the city. Speed and connectivity is everything in the 21st century. I mean, if you look at the closing of certain trading floors in Chicago.
Speaker 6: They just can't keep up with.
Speaker 10: The.
Speaker 3: Trading that's going on in other cities. And if we want to be a world class city, we're going to have to have Internet and communication technologies that allow us to do that. I had a friend recently moved to a new city and he chose the neighborhood where he was going to live based off of the connectivity of the Internet and the speed of which the Internet in that area. And that's going to ring true for people my age as they move to Denver. And we need to build a system that provides proper access and is attractive to people to move to. And finally, if we do not act, we will only continue to push people to less to forms of entertainment, video, entertainment that generate less revenue for the city. Right. If there's not competition. Comcast provides poor customer service. Young people are just going to seek their entertainment dollars and spend those elsewhere. And the city isn't going to get the 5% of the revenue that comes in when I go buy my Netflix subscription. Right. And so with all of that, I thank you very much for your time and I ask for your support on this measure. Thank you, Mr. Crowe. Brigitte Alexander.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Brigitte Alexander. I am a mother of two, a college student and a high school student. And I live in the community of Montebello and I'm greatly concerned about the accessible currently proposed in this agreement between the the Century CenturyLink and the City Council. As a member of this community, which is, I wouldn't say poorer than some because I'm a hardworking citizen, but I probably have to work harder than some people. I want to know what's going to be done to ensure the services that will reach me and my children, who have the projects to do, who have research papers to do, who have these things to do, what's going to be done for this CenturyLink to reach us and when will it be done? I think that what I've heard in this presentation, presentation that I heard tonight is kind of unclear to me. It's kind of vague. It's not really telling me anything that I really need. So I'm asking you as my city council people, what are we going to do or what are you going to do, should I say, to help them serve the community that I live in? And when will be this? When will this be done? Thank you for your time.
Speaker 10: Bye bye.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Ms.. Alexander. Naomi Ramirez.
Speaker 1: Good evening, council members. My name is Noé Ramirez with a strategy. We're the largest privately held minority owned broadcaster in the U.S., and we ranked number three in Spanish media in the United States. I am for choice and for competition. Let's give people what they want to watch. Comcast uses market dominance to undercut competition and limit diversity in broadcasting. As of February 19th, we were forced off there, off of Comcast. And this happened in the Denver market, Houston market and Salt Lake City market. Are huge Hispanic markets. Houston number five in the market. Denver is 17th in the United States as far as the Hispanic population. This affects the Hispanic voice. We are a window of information and a win and a voice for the Hispanic community. And as this is happening, you know, we're Comcast is definitely limiting that voice and that window of information that we provide as a straight away. This is also affecting advertisers. Over 50% of our advertisers are minority owned, locally owned businesses. So, you know, I'm definitely pro-choice and pro pro competition. Definitely Comcast has put it has put its business interests ahead of the Hispanic community and consumer. This is a David versus Goliath scenario as straight straightaways live in this right now as we speak. And when there's no competition, you you don't give people choice. So I'm definitely food for choice and for competition. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Ms.. Maria Ramirez. Reverend Zimmer. And as Reverend Dimon coming up, I'm going to call the last two speakers, Nancy Ulrich and Richard Schultz. You can make your way to the wrap. You and reverend dinner. You may begin your remarks.
Speaker 12: President Herndon and to all of the members of the city council, thank you for once again allowing me this opportunity to speak to you. I have spoke to you. I have written to you. I have urged you. I have strongly allowed my voice to be spoken concerning this. And I want it to be clear. For the record, I am not against CenturyLink. I am against the language and that which seems to be guiding the proposal that the city council is accepting. And I'm I'm disturbed. I'm very disturbed as some of the others that have spoken after speaking and really sharing my heart and after they they went back and they redid some of the contract language, they came back with things like significant and I'm not sure what significant means because when we talk about our T's remote terminals, that only will reach 500 residents. And most of your city council districts have at least 25,000 residents. How can you possibly think that 500 and adding one more. If you reach 27.5, adding one more or two more or three more will not make a difference. And we elected you to look out for the little person, the affluent, those that are wealthy, those that are in great communities. They don't need your representation. They do not need your protection. I am here because I represent the voice and the political voice of not only the NAACP, but also the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance. And I'm a pastor in my community. And I want you I beg you to really consider what you are about to. Okay? It is great to have competition. I welcome it. I like the idea that if I don't want a McDonald's hamburger, I can go get a Burger King. I like the idea that if I do not want Comcast, I can go to CenturyLink. I like that. But I want you to hold anyone who comes into our community as responsible to every ethnicity, black or brown, as you did with Comcast. What's wrong with guaranteeing that you will reach a build out that will insure all people? Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Aaron Timmer, Nancy Ulrich.
Speaker 5: Good evening.
Speaker 1: I'm Nancy Elrick, and I live in Denver and District five. I'd like to.
Speaker 5: Start my comments by saying, by taking the opportunity to say.
Speaker 1: Thank you to each and every one of you, city council people.
Speaker 5: For all the time and.
Speaker 1: Effort you put in in your office. There's a major election this spring.
Speaker 5: And there will.
Speaker 1: Be new faces here in July of 15. But thank you. And I hope that some of your constituents. Thank you also. Now, as to this courtesy hearing.
Speaker 5: The only thing that concerns one of the things that.
Speaker 1: Concerns me is has the.
Speaker 5: Contract already been signed?
Speaker 1: I have already seen.
Speaker 5: Advertising by CenturyLink and I understood they would not advertise until this the contract was completed. This kind of makes this.
Speaker 1: Courtesy.
Speaker 5: Hearing unnecessary. But the bottom line is Denver at long last has cable.
Speaker 1: Another cable provider. And not only that, this because of this new service, the Communications Workers of America will be assured of jobs for for years to come. And, of course, jobs are good for Denver and what we need. I do have a concern.
Speaker 5: That that CenturyLink might start in affluent areas. The rules changed by the FCC in 2008 allow this second entrant.
Speaker 1: To have a different course.
Speaker 5: Than Comcast had.
Speaker 1: However.
Speaker 5: I think the leadership of CenturyLink cares.
Speaker 1: Loud and clear that the city will be.
Speaker 5: Watching them as time goes on. I'm wondering if the if CenturyLink will have.
Speaker 1: To report annually to City Council. For some years, Comcast did that. And there was a way for the public to come to a meeting and voice their concerns.
Speaker 5: And the the agreement, which I understand is ten years.
Speaker 1: Then what is spire ten years from now in the spring is that I understand that should be correct. I know that members.
Speaker 5: Of CenturyLink will.
Speaker 1: Meet with the staff of the city of Denver.
Speaker 5: And I think that's a very good thing. And I would also like.
Speaker 1: To hope that someone from the public at large would be able to attend those meetings to be kind of an overseer in that process. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Horwich. Richard Schutz.
Speaker 11: Hello. I'm Rick shoots. I live in the Flat Park neighborhood in Denver. Thank you for hearing me tonight. CenturyLink has been installing new fiber optic communication equipment in my neighborhood. The new equipment supports higher speed communication technologies, cable television, and makes CenturyLink more competitive with Comcast. We. As consumers usually come out ahead when there is competition. And I support this. I do. However, the installation has a lot to be desired. CenturyLink has chosen to put four or five separate boxes at some sites. The result is that each site has a standalone Excel Power meter, a fiber optic equipment box, a DSL box, and one or two patch panels. There's at least one of these sites within a four block radius of each other. Most of the time, these boxes end up in the utility right of way strip between the sidewalk and the street, which is often landscaped by the property owner. I think the installations look too industrial and out of place in our neighborhoods. Our neighborhood also has Comcast service, but I have never seen any of the Comcast equipment or if I did see the Comcast equipment, it did not look out of place or bad to me. So why can Comcast provide service and not trash out the neighborhood with their equipment? And CenturyLink does. Another problem with the CenturyLink infrastructure is it becomes a graffiti magnet that is never, ever, ever cleaned off by CenturyLink people. This really adds insult to injury. The neighborhoods really don't need industrial looking equipment covered in graffiti. The public right away. In the public right away. CenturyLink has all the rights but none of the responsibility. I would like to question if the right of way is the best place for this kind of equipment. This equipment's foothold or sorry, this equipment's footprint is increasing in size and the number of sites. In many cases, the public right of way is the front of the homes and therefore the front of the neighborhoods. But this equipment looks like something that belongs in the alleys. Placing CenturyLink equipment in the right away might have sounded like a good idea in the past, but after seeing the reality of this new implementation, I think it was a bad mistake. Can we have as part of the conversation with CenturyLink, how can their infrastructure be more compatible with neighborhood character and not look so industrial during permitting ? Can we have better oversight where this equipment is going to be placed? And finally, at a minimum, can we hold CenturyLink responsible to clean the graffiti off of their equipment? Thanks for listening to me, and thank you for your service to the city.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from many members of council. Council councilmember.
Speaker 6: Well, thank you, Mr. President. We've had some good questions. And Mr. Campbell, would you like to come and address some of those specifically from the last two speakers, Nancy and Richard? And why don't you start with the last comments from Richard in terms of the equipment, the you know, the looks of it, the graffiti, etc.. Would you mind addressing.
Speaker 10: No. Councilman Brown. Of the equipment that we use is actually pretty similar to what the the incumbent uses and other utility providers. Obviously when we've we've been installing equipment in the public rights of way in the city county for a hundred years now. And we obviously have to comply with all of your right away rules and regulations. And and we do that every day. If there's an issue with a particular box that we've installed, we'd love to hear about that. We've been doing it for a long time. So I'm not sure, you know, what, what the scope of the graffiti issue is. Obviously, it's it's an issue throughout the city or not on our boxes, but on other people's as well. And we certainly try and work as hard as we can as a company to ensure that we minimize our impact on the right of away . The equipment.
Speaker 6: That you're currently installing in.
Speaker 10: Plant Park?
Speaker 6: Is that for phones? Phone service?
Speaker 10: It would be for both phone, internet. And then when we have the franchise agreement would be able to do for cable television as well. So I think all three services are going through those boxes.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then getting back to Nancy's concern, she asked a very basic question. No contract has been.
Speaker 10: Signed, right? No contract has been signed. With respect to the advertising. There probably is advertising on TV that residents of Denver and Aurora and other places we don't have a franchise are seeing. When you purchase advertising, you purchase it on what's called a DMA wide basis. So when we buy it, we're buying it for the city and county of Denver as a whole. So, yes, there are those places where you'll see we can't sell the product. I've actually seen the advertising as well. We just can't sell it until we get a franchise agreement. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. We had a lot of questions about this issue in committee and actually had asked that our city team and CenturyLink go back and try to define what ended up being language that speaks to significant. And I'd like to ask either David Broadwell or Frank Dayton to describe the process by which the city will look at how we're going to ensure that cherry picking of fluent neighborhoods does not happen and that we are looking at more equitable distribution or deployment of services that will be provided by CenturyLink across the city.
Speaker 10: Well, thank you for the question. I'll respond to the process. And then with regards to the words significant, I'll leave that to David Broadwell. So what the intent is in the language of the contract, we can request from CenturyLink on demand where their service availability exists and who they provide service to. What we would do at that point then is is to bring that information, that data into what we call our geospatial system, which is generation of maps. Those maps would overlay the footprint of service availability throughout the entire city and county of Denver down to the home level. But what we will do is we'll also put on underneath it is the median income above and below. So we'll flag that and go below median income. One color above the median income will be another color. And then we'll be able to see the percentage that's above and a percentage that is below. We will track that and we will monitor the trends as they continue to grow. We've done some reference checks throughout some other cities with regards to how they monitor and what they've seen and everything that CenturyLink had done thus far. They've exceeded by by an extreme amount. So so that's how we'll monitor it going forward. And then we've got those quarterly meetings. We'll also put this information out for the public to take a look at as well on our on our website. So if we get any feedback, we could take that and consider that as well when we discuss that with CenturyLink.
Speaker 5: Thank you. David, do you want to describe.
Speaker 13: I'll comment briefly. Again, David Broadwell, assistant city attorney, the negotiation. And let me just back up for a moment. Took place over the course of June, all the way up until now. So there have been months of negotiation, most of which is centered on this very issue in terms of how specific CenturyLink was willing to be, in terms of exactly where and exactly what rate its service deployment was going to be occurring. And what you see in the final product was the best results we could achieve in that negotiation. Which one of the speakers said it's the same as the other cities in the front range and it certainly is not. There are there are multiple differences in our service delivery provisions that vary quite a bit from some of the other communities, particularly just to the south. But at any rate, that the one of the last changes before bringing the bill forward to the floor today was this we were seeking all along geographic distribution, some element of geographic distribution so that we wouldn't have services being built from south to north as they were serving communities south of Denver. We certainly didn't want to see 20 or 30% penetration of the Denver market, all in South Denver. We wanted to see it spread around town, so that's in there. And then one of the last amendments was to say, and in the course of deployment, there has to be demonstrable, significant investment in lower income neighborhoods. The word significant is is admittedly subjective. It's not a specific, measurable performance standard where X numbers of households in Y numbers of lower income neighborhoods would have to be served. But it's. Not without meaning. The word significant is used in hundreds of state statutes and has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions to have a meaning which, as I explained in committee, means not token, not minimal, not trivial. It has to be something beyond just a token effort in terms of the deployment in the lower income neighborhoods. It has to be substantial and above some trivial or minimal level. Does it have to be a 50, 50, 50 type of a pure, exact equal parity? No, it just has to be something beyond minimal that we can actually see and perceive and address as Mr. de Noun indicated. One of the things we've done in our due diligence is just to get a sense for other communities like Colorado Springs and elsewhere in the western United States to get a sense for what this company's deployment has been. And we're encouraged that there doesn't appear to be cherry picking, there does appear to be broad geographic distribution in the other cities that they worked, and certainly above the level of what we would probably define a significant in terms of service to lower income neighborhoods as well as higher income neighborhoods.
Speaker 5: So I have one additional question, if I may, Mr. President, and this is to the companion Bill. It's actually companion in terms of timing in which it's been filed. It's actually the the ordinance that basically addresses the role that city the city plays in overseeing of cable TV franchise agreements. So, David, can you speak to what the. I'm looking at the language here. The second. The certain provisions that City Council would have involvement in reviewing and looking at with the committee that's going to look at the enforcement of the cable franchise.
Speaker 13: Yes. And at your direction and Councilwoman Rob's direction, we brought this forward at the same time to make sure formally in ordinance council will have a seat at the table in terms of overseeing compliance with all the performance standards in the franchise on an ongoing basis, but with a new specific reference to this issue. And that is fair, fair roll out of service to lower income neighborhoods as well as as any other neighborhood in town and no discrimination on the basis of income levels of a particular neighborhood. Up until a few years ago. We had an interesting situation in Denver where cable franchise administration was entirely under the city council, but it was moved out of your purview just a few years ago for different reasons and placed in technology services in the executive branch. And when we moved it over, we kind of said from now on, franchise enforcement will be an executive branch function. Now by virtue of the companion ordinance, you're reading it back a little bit in terms of adding some council involvement again and to sitting side by side with Mr. De Doan and with his department in terms of regular monitoring of the performance of the franchisees for franchise obligations. One of the speakers referred to a broader citizen involvement in that process that is not directly addressed in the ordinance. If you ever wanted to have more conversation with technology services about having some broader citizen oversight, I'll let Mr. De don't speak for himself about whether that's something that that he would entertain as to add even more transparency to the process.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I have no further questions at this time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Kenney.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Several of my colleagues asked some of the questions that I had about the fairness, as well as council monitoring. But I wanted to dig in to some of the questions that folks had about the amount of build out. So there was a lot of concern expressed about the remote terminals, which only serve 400 to 500 households, but that's not the only provision requiring buildout. And so, Mr. Dayton, if you could please clarify, if CenturyLink only built it one remote terminal in each council district and they never met the 27.5% threshold, would they be satisfying the terms of this agreement and why not? What provisions are in play?
Speaker 10: There's another provision that says they need to cover at least 15% of the city and county of Denver as a whole. If you were to put and this is all obviously rough estimates, if you were to put one remote terminal in each district, that would only represent roughly 2%. So they would actually distribute another 13.
Speaker 1: So if I may just make sure I'm understanding that correctly. What that means is regardless of market penetration, they will need to build out to 15% of the customers households in this city by the time the two years are up. The first two years.
Speaker 10: You're correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. The second question I had is for Jim. If you could come up so to Mr. Chutes, if I'm saying that correctly. I'm sorry, Mr. Schuetz, your questions I want to get you're kind of vague in your answer. And so here's what I wanted to do, is to ask you if you would commit to contacting or sharing information with each of our council offices, with the phone number where we would report any graffiti that's on your boxes and confirm that indeed there are personnel in your company or through a contractor that are assigned to graffiti abatement. And then if you could also just share with us what, if any, notification requirements you use for property owners so that we can all be informed of what cause, you know, people who are having a box put in that impacts their property, what notice they should be getting, who they will hear it from so that we can just make sure that we understand the procedures you're using. And if we get a complaint about graffiti, who we call so that we have not you know, we're not looking at the phone number in the white pages, but we have a maintenance office or some other point of responsibility to take those concerns. Would you be willing to get us that information between now and the next. Yes, vote on this? That would be very.
Speaker 10: That's in with respect to what our internal procedures are regarding graffiti, I'm going to be honest with you. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Understand. Get it? If you can get it set after tonight, give you a short time to dig into that. We will do that.
Speaker 10: And you can call me.
Speaker 1: That's all right. Thank you very much. Those are my questions, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Can each. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Jim, you can come on up here. I'm a very competitive person, and so I love competition. I think it's really important that we have this, especially in business. But I also want folks to, you know, start off from the same playing field. And so I just want you to answer the question, why is it so tough? To commit to universal coverage for business.
Speaker 10: Councilman Brooks is a second entrant. Obviously, every subscriber we acquire currently has a relationship with someone else. I mean, to go back to 1984 when the incumbent first signed, that's their franchise at that time, first of all, franchises were actually exclusive between 84 and 92. So when they originally signed up, the federal law prohibited this city council from signing a franchise agreement with someone else. They eliminated that in 92. And there's still no any no competitive franchises in Denver. There was one for a short period of time with a small company. So as a second entrant in any market like this and I'll flip this to the telephone side, if I may, Councilman Brooks, when we had the monopoly, we served 100% of the market and they opened up our markets in 1996. At the time, competitive local exchange providers and cable companies entered the telephone market. And the first thing that they said, including predecessors of this incumbent, is we we can't agree to any build out because there's no second entrant that would ever commit to that type of capital upfront before you have a subscriber on the FCC. And every state commission agreed with them. They had zero buildout requirements. And now here we are eight years later, and competitive providers have taken over 75% of our market share. That same truth holds for the video side as a second entrant. We we as a company and we answer to our shareholders could never commit to a $500 million billion dollar build over a short period of time entering a market where there is an incumbent with a 40 year head start in a contract. And that's sort of the policy behind why we've done this. I would point out what Mr. de Doan said, and I think David alluded to it, even though we are agreeing to a smaller number initially, and I would point out that's in two years the South Denver franchises are three. So that's 44,000 homes we have to hit. We'll go beyond that. But to put it in a contract that where we're subject to penalties, where we're subject to franchise revocation and all the the bad things with go with breaching a contract, there's really no second entrant that's ever done that. Yeah.
Speaker 7: And so in your home market, you've never done a universal covered. Let me let me ask Mr. Duncan. Thanks, Jim. Appreciate it. I mean, if you think about nationwide, what we have and, you know, obviously there's new federal laws that prohibit us from from making certain businesses do certain commitments. But if you look, is there any other second entrant who's who's had universal coverage?
Speaker 10: Not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 13: Councilman Brooks, we've seen franchises, particularly back east, with another company, a different company, Verizon, where they have agreed to a universal service requirement over a period of seven or eight years. Often it's a is that there's a set time. They have to do it. But these are franchises we saw negotiated in the 070809 time period where at least that company in some locations has agreed to do it. But we don't know of another example of CenturyLink agreeing to do it in recent years.
Speaker 7: Okay. So so let me just clarify. This was 070809 with Verizon. But since 20 1314, there's been no other company who's done that.
Speaker 13: I'm afraid I'm going to be at a loss. I haven't kept up totally with everything exactly going on. I was talking to my counterparts in Portland just this past week, but I can't say comprehensively around the country in the last couple of years that the ones I've reviewed have tended to come from that time period a few years ago.
Speaker 7: David That's okay. You can't know every single thing, so you're, you're given permission. Okay. One one more quick question. And I think, Councilwoman, can each ask this question. But I just wanted to clarify this. The remote terminals. Jim, real quick, I.
Speaker 10: Don't need to go to the gym tonight.
Speaker 7: So, yeah, the remote terminals cover how many households?
Speaker 10: About 500 homes. Okay. For remote terminal, that's in about 500.
Speaker 7: Okay. So, yeah. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Levitt.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to follow up on Mr. Schuetz question about the the placement of those terminals and or the the switch cabinets. And I'm looking around and Kevin Magner was here earlier, but he's no longer here. So maybe I'll just sort of throw this out. You know, you get rights to operate in the right of way and the ideal location for you might be dramatically suboptimal for nearby neighbors. Whereas a slightly less ideal location for you could actually be a dramatic improvement for neighbors. I don't know what the system is for establishing that. Do you guys just, you know, put in a permit to permit application? Here's where we want to. Is there any sort of thought or interaction with public works about, you know, where would be a better location, any dickering over those locations? You understand that dynamic on display?
Speaker 10: Councilman Everett, I do not mind.
Speaker 9: Okay. Well, it's slightly less good to put it there. That's fine. We'll do that. And that would make it a whole lot better for Mr. Schrute. We're not just, you know, helping him out.
Speaker 10: We're helping. No, I understood it. But Councilman Nevett, obviously, even though we do have access to the right away as as the traditional incumbent monopoly, we don't we can't really run around the right away and toss stuff in there without talking to your public works department. So the process we're following is yours. And so I imagine some locations get approved quicker than others. I'm sure I'm not speak for our network. I absolutely imagine there has been negotiations back and forth. Hey, can you put it here? Do you mind moving it here as a result of the notification? I mean, we've got lots of boxes out there, so I can't imagine there's been a time where the city hasn't said, can you move it in the right away? And I'm sure we've agreed to do that.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thanks. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. Perfect. Segway from Councilman Nevitt. I actually like so many of our council districts, I imagine every district has dealt with boxes that were optimal locations in the right away. And what I learned in the last experience in my district is the city does not require permits for boxes under four feet in height , and your boxes are getting smaller, but the holes in the ground are getting deeper. So I do think it's something that the city's got to look to as well. And I think we have some work to do in the next week on that, because the last box that went in in my district should have been run by forestry, but it was under four feet high, even though it was a five feet hole in the ground and the damage to tree roots was substantial. Now, you guys were great in, came out and changed things, but it was sort of hard to put the roots back. Oh, hopefully the tree will live. So I think that Mr. Schuetz has raised a really good question and I think I'm supposed to be answering it, asking a question here. So let me let me just ask if you would be amenable to working with the city on the boxes that are under four feet high in terms of permitting.
Speaker 6: We we will work.
Speaker 10: With you any way we can. I absolutely, councilwoman.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for that. And then secondly, it's amazing how much we can talk about this in committee. And certain questions don't come up until the public hearing. This is probably for Frank de Doan in our Comcast franchise, I believe we had auxiliary legislation about customer service standards. Do we have that same those same standards with CenturyLink?
Speaker 10: I believe they're identical. But I just heard David.
Speaker 13: Yes, the customer service standards were adopted by ordinance to be applicable to any cable service provider in Denver.
Speaker 1: That's why we.
Speaker 13: Don't have to present or future. But so they are applicable and they'll be physically attached to this franchise as an attachment. And they are identical for both companies if if this franchise is granted.
Speaker 1: Okay. And I ask this because I think in the most recent Comcast franchise, we stopped the annual hearings in. So that's not in it. But what is the route for a citizen to complain about service from whatever cable provider? What how does a citizen do that?
Speaker 10: There's today I don't know the number off the top of my head, but there's a number that they can call which comes to my agency. And then we contact whoever the vendor is and communicate with them. And then we follow up and make sure that the issues were addressed.
Speaker 1: And can they do that on the Internet as well as is there a place on the Denver gov site? I'm looking.
Speaker 10: For to saw the Denver gov so I can get that information.
Speaker 1: Again. And can you track the complaints or do you track the complaints so that council, if they wanted an annual report, could could get that from you?
Speaker 10: Absolutely. We tracked them all the way through resolution.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, counsel. And we're comfortable in the mantra.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Like like Councilwoman Robb. I'm concerned about the customer service. I recently called CenturyLink because I needed to get service, and it wasn't a great experience. So can you can you walk me through and assure me that because what you're saying is it's after the fact. You're talking about well, you know, if somebody complains, we'll follow it and things like that. But you're sitting here asking for us to vote on on this. And I worry about how people are going to be treated through that and how many you know, how much it's going to cost and how much you're going to be bumped around. And also the wait time for them to get the service should this go forward.
Speaker 10: QUESTION Thank you, counsel. And obviously, that's your primary goal as regulators to ensure that the customers receive a good experience in a competitive environment, which we're trying to substantially increase that in Denver. Most people now will have the ability to not walk, but maybe they'll walk with their feet as opposed to call in the city. They'll actually be able to call another provider is a competitive you know, we're entering we pass now over two and a half million homes. And as I said, every subscriber we pick up currently has a relationship with somebody else. So if our customer service isn't up to speed.
Speaker 5: Doesn't that mean.
Speaker 10: That means that means when they when the incumbent built in 1984, there were no cable subscribers, they were guaranteed every mile of plant they built. Everyone that subscribed is going to subscribe to them. Now we're entering a market where they've had a 40 year head start, so if our customer service isn't good, then it's not going to be really a city issue. We're not going to do very well in the market in a competitive marketplace, so it behooves us to have the best customer experience possible. Now that being said, I'd be happy to take offline what your experience was, if there's anything I can do to fix it, but it's incumbent upon us to do a good job.
Speaker 5: Of course it is like. Of course it is. But that doesn't always happen. And I you know, I would like I would like to hear, does it need to be. Well, if you can. I mean, I think people need to feel like when they call that, they're going to be treated special and that they're going to get the service that they that they want and not have to eventually complain and do that because people work so hard. And if they're on hold for a half hour waiting for service, you know that's not right either. So do you. And also the other question, so if you could tell me how that would work. And then also, will they be calling when they call? Are they calling locally or are they calling somewhere else in the United States.
Speaker 10: On new orders, on prisms? Some of those calls, the incoming calls will be local in nature. Again, all CWA jobs, you know, we have 17 million subscribers, the incoming, as you know, 35 million subscribers. We take pride in our customer service. Have we tripped up? I, I assume we have. And we do everything in our power to fix any problem that might exist, like any provider in the marketplace. But obviously, as I said, as we're entering this market, trying to get people to come to us from another provider if we don't. Do a good job. The market's going to speak and it's not going to be a city or a government issue. It's going to be a market issue.
Speaker 5: So so right now you don't. I've asked twice for a customer service. What will it be like when someone calls? What is good customer service to me?
Speaker 10: Well, according to the the guidelines, obviously, all calls have to be answered within 90%, within 30 seconds. Obviously, then our salespeople, if they're calling into order PRISM, I'm sure they're going to try and get them to bundle as much as they can. They're going to try and offer the higher speeds on the Internet, because the more products you have from a customer, if they're you know, if if we have a customer that has two products, the likelihood they stay with us for a longer period, it grows. So we're going to be offering, you know, I hope our representatives, we're telling them all the products and service we offer, the different pricing packages, the different levels, and. I don't know if that specifically answers your question. I mean, when somewhere every conversation with a customer service representative is a little bit different when people call in. But.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Ortega's okay if I go to Councilman Lopez since he hadn't had the. Thank you. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I was going to ask you a question if you. I understand some of the worries about services in areas where there they're very low income. And I understand some of the questions now. My question would be is but understanding what the franchise agreement is saying and, you know, looking at these areas, I think the council over the last so many months has expressed some desire to see things leveled out. What has been and I know I heard this in committee, but if you can remind us what has been your work or team plan so so far, what you've been able to do, where you look at going, where you're planning on locating some of these services to kind of to equalize that access to that information, to make sure that there's terminals in areas that are not just affluent. What's been some of the work that you've been doing or how have you how are you planning on where do you know where you're going to put these things? I mean, sure. How do you know where you're going to put them?
Speaker 10: I think your question I think you asked in committee, what are the factors we look at when we were making our initial investment? Obviously, one of the first is when you start out and you build your beachhead, you want to find out network, that's the least costly to upgrade. So we're looking at in part of that is density. If you're going to spend $50 million, you'd rather cover 100,000 homes as opposed to 20. So one of the issues we look at is how many homes are within an area. The video market does very well in higher density areas where you have a lot of homes where you pass more that I kind of that increases your penetration rates does does.
Speaker 6: Is that likelier or more universally? The issue or not the issue the the result, whether it's lower income or higher income as is density. The I mean, I know that's a factor, but do you see a difference?
Speaker 10: No. Councilman Lopez, I actually don't. I mean, there are there are dense neighborhoods that cover the wide spectrum of socioeconomics in Denver. So, you know, a household as a household, we want to get access to as many subscribers we can. The whole issue of of redlining and cherry picking, I understand it. It is, Frank said I it's never the claims never been made against us. We've never engaged in it. Every city we've launched in, we've made a very significant investment below the median come after the Colorado Springs and other areas. So I understand the issue and I think frankly that Staff and City did a very good job during this negotiation process to try and alleviate that concern. And I think Mr. Broadwell said it. This agreement is in fact, different than any other agreement we've ever signed.
Speaker 6: Okay. And I think the last thing if I can, Mr. President, the last thing I asked, you know, some of the work that's been that you guys have been working on, things that you've been planning, what where do you see the gaps existing in Denver and where do you plan on? I mean, I know if there's you, you probably don't want to say everything because I guess, you know, there is such thing as competition and and your own competitive bids are competitive.
Speaker 10: And Mr. Dolan has his pencil out ready to write down the neighborhoods. So. So some of the work we've been doing, you saw we announced our gig deployment recently, which is which is an Internet deployment. We're very excited to come into the Villa Park neighborhood and the whole neighborhood as well, where we those subscribers are online today . And with that service, once we have the ability to sell the video, the ability to offer that to the home, those homes will be immediate in addition to the work we're doing to upgrade remote terminals. So.
Speaker 6: Okay. So where you went into the gig areas, the cable will almost be.
Speaker 10: The only thing that prohibits us from selling cable in the Villa Park neighborhood today is this agreement. We could sell it today.
Speaker 6: Because they're capable. Because of the game.
Speaker 10: Because? Well, because the Internet speeds. We've already done the work on the head end. Really. All the neat thing about Denver, as I said, we have no speed to market issues. Once we have the agreement, we can launch immediately. Okay.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: I'd like to ask Frank to come back up to the microphone. Frank. I know that when you talked about. This franchise being virtually the same as Comcast, I'd like you to just speak briefly to how many of our pick, not the channels, but the organizations that received funding from the franchise still exist. It's my recollection that we still have DPS, Terraria, Denver Open Media. Is there another area.
Speaker 10: As of right now that in Denver Media Services?
Speaker 5: Okay. And can you just describe how franchise fees from this from CenturyLink will actually help support those as well?
Speaker 10: Sure. Well, I mean, it's it's a fee of $1.05 per month per customer. It'll it'll be remained to see how much revenue that generates to distribute to those different groups. However, there is one slight difference that maybe David could explain with regards to multi units and how that works. But for the most part, I mean, it's still going to be distributed the same way and it will. It remains to be seen how much revenue actually drives.
Speaker 13: The one main difference is that the peg fee under the CenturyLink proposal would, in a congregate living situation like an apartment, house and so forth, be multiplied by the number of units as opposed to being charged one time 105 per month as it is under the Comcast franchise. But let me illuminate a little bit more Frank's previous point, which is it's hard to calculate how much additional revenue a major may generate because there's question is if CenturyLink gains a customer, will Comcast lose the customer? Right. And so whether or not there will overall be more video customers paying higher and paying more, claiming accumulative fees. It's very speculative at this point because we haven't been in this sort of competitive environment historically. Who knows how it's all going to shake out?
Speaker 5: Well, that may depend on how affordable the rates are. That might entice more customers that don't exist today at all. Would you address whether or not the previous position that was held by Darren Silk is going to be replaced so that as there are complaints that need to follow, these standards are being addressed that there is a point person or do you already have a point person who handles any of the cable franchise issues that come through?
Speaker 10: Actually. So it's. Thank you for that question. The actual position that Darren Saki held will not be replaced. The functions have already been distributed. So Julie Martinez is now the acting director of Denver Media Services and she'll manage that. Those inbound customer service requests and also the fee agreements with those other organizations like Denver Open Media Services. The other part that we actually incorporated under under my Spanish Control, we have a governance and compliance group that's run by Steven Corey. He's our chief information security officer. And there is an actual auditor that sits within several auditors, actually, that sit within his group, but one specifically that's dedicated to a franchise agreement, monitoring it and doing all the data analysis to ensure that. And what that does as well is it also kind of separates the two functions. So Denver Media Services actually benefits from the cable peg fees. So I wanted to ensure that there was some kind of outside oversight that was managing that to ensure that, you know, everything was being distributed equitably.
Speaker 5: So have you thought about how council plays a role in working with the IT department in monitoring the compliance?
Speaker 10: Quite honestly, I welcome it just like I do with any other technology, you know, initiatives that we have. You know, I know there's the, you know, the ordinance that's out there right now, the change in, you know, I supported 100% of your feedback is absolutely invaluable. You understand what's going on on the ground, on the ground in your and your districts. You know, I understand technology and that's that's really, you know, my area of expertize.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I just have one last question for David. We've had some concerns expressed that Denver didn't go far enough with the work that we did on this franchise. And I would just like you to help council understand if we would even be in a position to oppose this franchise. So can you just speak to that in general?
Speaker 13: Well, the short answer is you could oppose it if you voted down if you choose to, and send us back to the drawing board for more negotiations. You have the option to do that. How much is too much? We were talking about subjectivity a while ago. The federal law says we're in a competitive franchise. He wants to come in. Approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. So what is unreasonable? What would be terms that would be unreasonable? And so there's a whole range of choices in terms of how hard a bargain you may try to to drive before you say no or where you where you draw the line and so on and so forth. So the much longer answer is, who knows? You know, in terms of whether or not there's more to be gained from this deal, the thing that, you know, is implicit in everything we've been talking about here tonight is that a franchise ordinance is different from any other kind of ordinance where further ordinance says you can drive the deal. You can you can pass a law forcing people to comply with it. But this is a negotiation. It's a contract as well as being an ordinance. And as such, you have to have willing parties on both sides. And this is the best deal that we could get to as of this point and is presented to you for your action. If you were to oppose it and articulate a different way to go, that might just send us back to the table.
Speaker 5: So I do have one last question. This is for Mr. Campbell. I wanted you to clarify. If our negotiating team had asked you to look at anything other than what is on the table today. We had a brief conversation after the last committee.
Speaker 10: Yes, we did. We saw some language. I don't remember it word for word that sort of had a one for one or sort of had some capital requirements in it. And we instead came to the agreement what we'd agreed to in another franchise, which is the significant language. So we had seen language I don't remember the exact wording, Councilman, but it had some sort of one for one capital requirement that said, if you build one here, you have to build one there. And we we we you agreed to the significant portion. Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other questions? Scene nine public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I didn't have any questions because I've gone to all the meetings and really given this a lot of thought. And I do appreciate the people who came tonight. They were very succinct and raised very good points on both sides of the issue. Like all of them said, they appreciate competition. And I believe competition is a very, very beautiful word. And I'd like for Denver to have it for cable TV. Our proving our predecessors, the previous council members set up cable franchises as non-exclusive in the period that I can remember. You may go back Father wisely. They wanted and expected other companies to enter the competitive arena under basically the same rules. Unfortunately, that's not what we have in front of us today in this CenturyLink franchise. It's a tortured agreement and a long way from what those previous councils envisioned. The key issue is buildout or lack thereof. I'd feel far better if I could go back to my area and say yes. Here's a small area that will get. The CenturyLink franchise opportunity to have some competition. You guys across the street, you guys down the blocks. I don't know if you'll ever get it. I agreed to something that I don't know if you'll ever benefit from or not. Just don't know. And that is comfort comfortable to me. Government should foster a level playing field. That also is the concept the voters approved in all Comcast or other iterations of the the Comcast history franchises that they were allowed to vote on per the city charter. Now, a number of things have changed. Apparently a Boulder court case, which is last time I look, is not a decision from the Supreme Court. And so therefore not definitive. And federal legislation has led our legal team to advise us that a level playing field is no longer a viable requirement. As much as I respect our legal advisors and I truly do. Other parts of the company have followed government not picking winners and losers. One was just referenced. Philadelphia, that's the eastern city that I remember, was given a franchise to a second entrant that follows all the principles of a level playing field. The entrant was just given more time to get to the final goal of build out, which I consider to be a very reasonable accommodation and would have been jumping up and down if that had been the agreement. One of the most troubling changes our legal team recommends loses me completely. However, it flies in the face of an oath I took when I was sworn into office to follow the city charter. The charter requires a public vote to grant cable franchises. If that is no longer viable based on our legal team, Denver should have asked the voters to change that charter provision when we made other charter changes in 2012. Despite my suggestion then, there were no takers then or now. Now we have a new franchise request to grant a much sweeter deal on build out and the voters are cut out of the decision making completely. Especially where the deal being offered isn't the same as the one offered to the previous provider. The voters should have a say. As so often happens, I may stand alone on this particular concern, but the inequity of this deal. And the circumvention of voter approval required by the city charter lead me to cast a no vote tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Thoughts, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, seven years on this council, I think, you know, we did. See, we're able to look at these agreements. And the first one where I think I'm fortunate enough to be able to see this process and to see a new company come into the market and create this competition, you know? You know, first of all, I just wanted to commend our council president, Chris Herndon, for representing the council on our behalf in the negotiations. But being able to really look at the franchise agreement, we want to really understand this is very new. This is new to a lot of us. You weren't around the first time mile high cable in and when it went into the works. I am I shared a lot of the same concerns. I do share a lot of concerns, same concerns that some of the folks that Reverend Denver and Reverend Denver. That's your new nickname. Now, Reverend Demmer shares. I do. I come from Westwood. I come from an area where I think there was a few areas where we were completely blacked out cable. And the only way you can get it as humanely crawl up that tower and do it yourself, which a lot of people used to do , but long gone are those days. I could tell you that right on my block off of Sixth and Knox in that area, I was in the alley throwing the trash one day and I saw a truck come by. Installing what he was saying was new Internet. And I had been living in this neighborhood for a while. I lived throughout the district. But the neighborhood, he was installing this Internet. It was a villa park. And the fact that they were already there. Installing this gig service. Now I know that in a lot of the neighborhoods I represent Villa Park struggles. And I don't like to say one more than the other, but it really does. And so it made me smile, knowing that they have access to this Internet now. Had nothing to do with the councilman living there, had nothing to do with anything except for the fact that it was an area that they recognized and needed the service. I'm happy to see it going. And, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole neighborhood and neighborhoods to the south, although also share into it, because now that there's this infrastructure there, I know it's going to grow. What's around that area? Sun Valley Avenue. Westwood, Barnum, Valverde, some of the poorer areas in my district. And I know that competition will help. It helps the consumer. It helps folks have access to information that they need to. You know, we've been working diligently with the emergency broadcast system to make sure it's in Spanish. Now, I know it's going to be in Spanish no matter where who you order your cable with. Right. It's going to be broadcasted. I know that. You know, I've seen CenturyLink and some of the areas of my district. You know, not only support the organizations in the district, but also open up new new infrastructure banking service. So, you know, I do have you know, do I think it's going to happen overnight? Absolutely not. Do I think it's going to be completely universal? Absolutely not. But I think we'll get close. And I think I feel I absolutely feel pretty confident with this agreement because I know I'm not the only council district that has folks who are struggling. And I know that this agreement speaks to other council districts. And I have already seen presence in the east side with this infrastructure. So, you know, I wanted to, you know, just on the cable side, thank you for your work and thank you for prioritizing that area town that helps me be able to look at this agreement and say, okay. I think that there's a good track record here and I'm going to cast my vote yes for it. And also because I know there's a lot of workers out there that are installing this and those are good union jobs. And I got to say, thank you for that as well, too. Those jobs are jobs that are forever. People retiring from those jobs have health care from those jobs. And I know that there's a knocking on doors. I do see a lot of your employees in my district. And so, you know, I'm a yes vote tonight and I'll be a yes vote for this franchise agreement the next time it's up. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to start by just thanking a number of my colleagues. This contract has taken a lot of input from this council, starting with Councilman Herndon. You know, there is not many other, if any models where you have a per council district build out. And I know that that was the result of his representation and coming back and forth for feedback from us during the negotiations. Councilwoman Ortega and Councilwoman Robb making sure that council had a role in the monitoring and the implementation of this agreement. That bill, which was, you know, really conceived of two or three weeks ago and is now being we actually council but 151 which we voted on in the block votes earlier tonight. Councilman Nevett, you know, although an unrelated issue, the question of right away and, you know, taking things wires off poles and burying them unrelated to this franchise but, you know, connected to this company. And so, you know, anyone who thinks that there hasn't been pushing on this particular contract, you know, one may not be aware or two just hasn't been able to follow the detail. There has been a number of ways that this council and the colleagues I've named and probably others that I may not just be aware of have impacted this. So I just want to say thank you to my colleagues for that representation in terms of the agreement. You know, one thing I think that both these providers are incumbent and our new entering have in common is, you know, I've had less than joyous customer service experiences with both of you as well as with most other companies. I have to call on the phone these days. I mean, it is really. And so I do I share Councilwoman Montero's concern. I hope everyone ups their game. People do still need to talk to human beings. You cannot do complicated transactions through Internet chat rooms. And so I do hope that training standards go up, not just stay the same, but go up for each of these companies. And I do hope that the competition, you know, results in better trained, more responsive, more experienced employees, because I don't think that those employees aren't trying hard. I think that they're new. They may be turning over too quickly. They may not have enough time trained before they're taking calls. I don't know what the problem is, but I do think that, you know, that that whole standard is an area that I hope that we monitor closely for all of our providers. In terms of this question of, you know, I share that customer service is one area of competition, but you know that for me, the fundamental vote on this on this agreement comes down to the question of whether I can deny anyone in the city competition because I can't guarantee it for everyone. I'm having to say that again because it's kind of counterintuitive. But if I said no to this agreement because I can't ensure that every single person in Denver will have a choice, I will be preventing any resident. In Denver from having a choice because there is no other company currently asking to provide services in Denver. And this is a really important point. If I were legislating an ordinance about the kind of service provision and the kind of build out requirements that I wanted, I would do what Councilman Fox has suggested. I would write an ordinance that said you should provide service to every single resident of Denver. But this is not an ordinance. It's a contract. I have to have agreement from another party. And so that is a factor in the kinds of things that I can deliver to my constituents and in terms of the kinds of things that I can deliver to the city. And so for me, the question isn't, could I write a perfect requirement? I'm sure I could. And I also believe that based on my team of city staff and my council president spending a year, maybe more than a year in these negotiations, I, I don't think that would result in provision of any service in Denver, because I don't know that I would have a provider who would agree to that. And that is a requirement in this situation. I can't require something unless there is an agreement because this is a contract. So that to me is the fundamental point on which I have to make my decision. And so I believe that we have pushed I believe that my colleagues have advocated. I believe that we do have mechanisms to hold this provider accountable. And I, for one, being a little bit of a data obsessed person, will be checking on the overlays and will be, you know, calling constituents and making sure that we have that accountability if we run into any discrimination related to income. So with that, I believe that it's our obligation to open the doors to some competition, even if it's imperfect. And I will be supporting this agreement tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman and Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank all of the speakers who are here tonight, particularly those who also came to our committee and shared their thoughts on all sides on this issue, as well as letters that we received forever in Denver. I know you wrote to us on several occasions and thank you for that input because I think that input helped ensure that we were looking at all the key points that we needed to be looking at in this process. I want to say thank you to our negotiating team that acted on the city's behalf. Would we like to see the build out more closely defined? Yeah, I think we all would. But again, I think our team advocated for the very best language that they could get agreed to. As Councilwoman Cannick just spoke about, I'm comforted by what I am hearing from our team and what we've heard from CenturyLink on what's actually happening on the ground in terms of the commitments that were made and where they're exceeding them. In many of our neighboring communities, where they're doing the build out of a franchise agreement. In the past I've sat on a couple of negotiating teams or rounds, I should say, for the CenturyLink contract. I mean, for the Comcast contract. And, you know, as as we were going through this process, I was, you know, recollecting all of those different areas that we were able to get agreed to by Comcast. And 99% of those issues were incorporated into this particular franchise. And so, again, we know that the sticking point was that 1% it was on on the build out and how how we were going to see that happen. I think with the additional language that we added to this agreement that came back to committee before this bill was filed, it helps ensure that the work that's going to be done by Mr. Dayton's team, along with the input from City Council, which by the way now will not just be on this franchise, it will also be on the Comcast franchise because it's related to the overall governing ordinance of cable TV franchise agreements. So I believe that we've got the the best deal that we've been able to work out. I'm comforted by the fact that CenturyLink does have good paying jobs for people who are union members. I think that's important for folks in our city who are dealing with increasing prices of housing to be able to afford to live in this city. And basically, I also want to thank CenturyLink when when this issue came to committee, we asked you to go out and hold at least one. A public hearing and you held two of them on the same day to ensure that we had some additional input from the public. So I appreciate that extra effort that you put into this. So I will be supporting this franchise agreement tonight. And just again, thanks to all who were involved in in bringing this forward and making it happen and looking forward to the competition. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody also for coming out tonight. I'm very I'm very conflicted about my vote on this tonight. The issue of significance was brought up by a couple of speakers that are here this evening, and that was explained by our city attorney. And I get that I'm not clear yet that significant applies to a high standard of customer service. And I want to I'm going to abstain tonight because I really I agree with Council Councilwoman Kennish about everybody needing to up their game. And my experience with Comcast was in that grade. Either it was, you know, but what is that saying? That saying that we what are the standards of customer service? And right now, I don't see any significant, compelling, wonderful, proactive customer service tonight. And I want to. Give you a time to tell me what that is. And we are on first reading tonight on public hearing. And I just want you to understand that I feel very strongly about that because people work very, very hard for their money. And and I believe that when people call that, they should be treated with dignity. They should be treated with promptness, they should be treated with respect and not bumped around. I don't think that's a lot to ask for people when they call. And I and I think that generally my feeling is when I call is I feel like I'm a victim instead of a like a prized customer. And I worry about customer service. And I just want to give you the time if you want to sit down and talk with me, because it didn't really come through clearly. And if any company, regardless of competition, blah, blah, blah, if they can't pick up the phone or when somebody calls in, they can't even do that part. Right. What's the point that the the driving force behind quality service is how you treat the people that call. And so let's have that conversation. And I just want to understand that tonight. The best I can do is abstain. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Any other comments on Council Bill 83? You know, I will simply add, I sincerely appreciate my council members are complimenting me for the role I had in negotiating team, but I want to compliment them because before I, I sat down with the team, I reached out to each of them and said what was important to you for you to see? And I appreciate all their comments. The vast differences that we had. So I had an understanding of how I could better represent council at the table. So I want to one thank them. I want to thank Frank Dayton and his team for the work they did as well as David Broadwell who was a part of that and CenturyLink. We've been at this for a while and to to say where we started at and where we are now are two very different points. And so I think it's worth noting, I appreciate their willingness to understand what our position was as a city and why it was important to that, because I think that is certainly worth noting. You know, we can complain about the law in regards to build out for a second entrance, but that is the law. And I don't think we should it's not something that we can be taken lightly, tends to apply the same standard when we know that we cannot. That's unfair to CenturyLink or any future entrant to to say we want the same thing that the initial interim had. When the law specifically tells us that that's something we cannot not do. I believe that the proposal before us, the franchise, does take equity into account, not in the form of a full build out, but the specifications that we are asking of CenturyLink are I definitely think are substantive. And the fact that we've noticed that any previous franchise before CenturyLink has gone above and beyond. So to think that for whatever reason they would do something different in Denver, I have not understood why people would think that. That's someone who represents far northeast with the largest city council district currently. There should be some concerns about one R.T. in each district. But I want to note that this is with the new council districts where the equity of population is equal, not the way that it is currently right now. And as Councilwoman Candace noted, you know, they just hit one R.T. and each of those district, they would be well below that threshold that they are required to hit. And so I think that's another that's another point. We have to ensure that there will be some distribution throughout all spectrums when it comes to income and other. So this is something that I feel is worth moving forward, and I would encourage my colleagues to do so. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Ortega Hi.
Speaker 4: Rob. I Sheppard I Susman Brooks Brown by Fox.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Can each i laman Lopez Hi, Monteiro Nevitt.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I am secretary. Please close the vote and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Ten Eyes one no and one abstention.
Speaker 3: Tonight one no. One abstention. Council Bill 83 has been ordered published one pre a German announcement. The policy agenda stated on a monday, March 23rd, 2015. There will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 117, amending the Weldon Street Commercial Corridor Cultural District as a district for preservation. However, it had been determined that a public hearing is not required on Council Bill 117 related to the One Street Commercial Corridor Cultural District, because the area encompassed by the historic district is not changing. The bill only changes. The name of the historic district amends the period of significance for this historic district and adds two contributing structures to the historic district. So there will not be a required public hearing and seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 0: Denver 365 is always available to show you the complete variety and scope of cultural, sporting, historic and family events offered in Denver and Colorado. Visit.
|
Bill
|
Grants Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., doing business as CenturyLink a nonexclusive franchise agreement with a duration of 10 years and authorization to make reasonable and lawful use of the Rights-of-Way within the City to construct, operate, maintain, reconstruct and rebuild a cable system for the purpose of providing cable television service in exchange for 5% of gross revenues. a) Presentation. b) Fifteen (15) minutes of public comment on proposal. Two minutes per speaker and equal opportunity for opposing perspectives as determined by the Committee Chair. Individuals wishing to speak must sign up in the Council conference room (3rd Floor, City & County Building, Rm. 391) between 1:00pm and 1:15pm. The order of speakers is determined by the Committee Chair. c) Discussion/Action. Grants Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., doing business as CenturyLink a nonexclusive franchise agreement with a duration of 10 years and authorization to make reasonable and lawful use of the Rights-of-Way within the City to construct, operate, maintain, reconstruct and rebuild a cable system for the purp
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03022015_15-0102
|
Speaker 3: President. Proclamations. We do have one proclamation this evening. Proclamation one zero to Councilwoman Robb, will you please provide proclamation one or two?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I am very proud to read Proclamation 102 series of 2015 honoring Sandy Saadallah, owner of Pismo Art Glass Galleries on the occasion of her retirement. Whereas after 25 years in business, Sandy Saadallah, the owner of the three Pismo Fine Art Glass Galleries in Denver, Aspen and Vail, Colorado, is following the age old adage to quit while she is ahead. And. WHEREAS, this astute businesswoman retires this spring after completing the best year of her career in the business, closing the Denver Gallery on March 31st with closures following in Aspen and Vail after the ski season concludes and she holds her once in a lifetime sale. And. Whereas, Sandy represented Delta Hooley, world renowned glass artist for more than 20 years in his outstanding exhibition last year at the Denver Botanic Gardens brought increased recognition and an appreciation of his artistry to Denver, increased sales to her gallery near the gardens and according to Sandy, spiked appreciation for glass art in general among Denver rights, even those with little prior interest in glass art before experiencing the exhibit. And. WHEREAS, Sandy, a longtime Denver resident and wife of retired nine News anchorman Ed Saadallah, has a master's degree from the University of Denver, has put her heart and soul into into her galleries, resulting in international acclaim for their breadth and depth of their collection and will be sorely missed in the world of glass art. 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 thanks and honor Sandy Saadallah for her contributions to Denver's creative economy and the evolution of Cherry Creek North is Denver's Premier Shopping District and Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Sandy Saadallah.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: I move that council adopt proclamation one or 220 15/2.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded comments from members of Council Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is is surely an honor as a few of my colleagues may have heard me say once or twice. Cherry Creek is Denver's renowned shopping area with the largest collection of local and independent merchants and businesses in the region. And I want to stress 74% of those businesses are local, and this really makes us the best place for local and national shopping. And it's very sad to see Pismo Gallery leave, but it's the case of natural retirement. Some of us I won't say exactly who, but some of us who might be around the same age as Sandy Saadallah realize that when you leave a job you love, it's truly bittersweet. Some of us don't have as much choice about when to quit as others, but I will tell you, I was in the shop today to pick up these cherries that came all the way from Italy. And I want you all to have them as collector's items from Cherry Creek. They're a favorite item to purchase in the store, but that store was. So I expected it to see it half empty. I mean, we're starting the sale. It is so beautiful there still. So what? So much wonderful stuff in there, even some that you can afford that I would suggest right now they're slashing prices by 20 and 30%. And it's just an experience you ought to go in. If you've never been in, it will be your last chance to go in and look around the press release. Sandy puts out talks about how much she really appreciates her staff and the artists she works with. I in there today I saw the staff and there they are going strong, so excited about what's in the gallery that I feel sort of bad for them. But anyway, I'm very pleased to bring this and I want to wish Sandy and her husband Ed a good time in their retirement. They do have a home in Pismo Beach, California, where they will be spending part of their time, but they reside in Denver and planned to keep Denver as home.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Rob, Councilman Brown.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Mr. President. And Sandy and Ed, it's great to have you in our chamber tonight. I loved your store, Sandy. You know what? You don't have to go in to appreciate it. I love good art and windows and you always had a great window there. It was so inviting. Today we received a copy of Wingtips and if my colleagues have a copy, you might want to go to page six because 20 years ago this weekend, Ed Saadallah was at the CIA opening the airport. And there you are. You and Adel, what a small world. I'm going to miss you guys. But thank you for for 25 years of what you've done in Cherry Creek. You've really made it a first class area of the shop. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Lemon.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to take a moment to thank you not only for what I've done, but for the charity that you found for us. And thank Councilwoman Robb as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Lemon. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to also thank you. This may seem like a simple piece of art, but it isn't. It takes a lot of craft and a lot of skill to do something like this. To work with glass is a very, very it's a technique that requires a lot of skill. I know this because when we had our in our schools a long time ago, you worked one of the things that we you were able to do and is is work with Glass. And one of the places that we went to to take a look at it was what you did to kind of expiries expire inspire us as students when i was younger in high school to give us ideas. So your impact is what they say. The apple doesn't fall far too far from the tree or the acorn doesn't know what it's going to be when it grows up. This little cherry is one of those things that could be used as well to look it with a very good analogy. But you will be missed. I know California's beautiful, but in Colorado you ain't. There's nothing like Colorado. And. And Ed, Mr. Saadallah, it's so good to see you. I grew up watching you. You know, I like Channel Seven as well, too. Oh, but. But I grew up watching you. Your voice. Your voice was in our household. Just as I hear your voice, my grandfather's voice and my grandmother's voice scold to me. So thank you for your service as well, too.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman.
Speaker 0: I just wanted to ask that my name be added. All right.
Speaker 3: Certainly, we will make sure that is done. Thank you. No names keep popping in about any other comments. All right. I think we're good seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Rob, I. Sheppard Susman. Hi, Brooks. Hi. Hi, Fats. I can eat Lemon Lopez. All right. Monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and ask the results. 3939 is proclamation one or two has been adopted, Councilwoman Robb. So anyone you like to invite to the podium?
Speaker 5: Well, there certainly is. So I have to say, as I was making my comments, if they seemed impersonal, where I sit, I can barely see you. The television to the computer monitor at the podium blocks you. But Sandy, I would love to have you come up and say a few words about your career and Denver, whatever's on your mind.
Speaker 0: I just want to say thank you to all of you. It's been 25 wonderful years. I've been in Cherry Creek North the whole time. I'm in my fourth location in Cherry Creek North. So I've become a staple, I guess. I've enjoyed it very much. It's been a labor of love. I've worked with wonderful artists such as Truly. We've representative for 23 years his stay at the Earth Show at the Botanic Gardens. Last year was phenomenal for all of us, the whole city and especially Pismo. It gave us recognition that we hadn't had, even though we had been representing him. A lot of people didn't know what glass art was. So we're very appreciative of what the gardens did and what the city did. So thank you. And we'll be in business for the rest of the month through March 31st. We encourage you all to come out and shop.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Fantastic. All right. Moving on to resolutions, Madam Secretary, please read the resolution.
Speaker 5: From safety and well-being 120 resolution authorizing approving payments from Bacchus and Shaker LLC for payment satisfaction. All claims in case number 14 CV 02358 dash KMT nine States District Court for the District Colorado.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Sandy Sardella, owner of PISMO Art Glass Galleries, on the occasion of her retirement.
honoring Sandy
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03022015_15-0009
|
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Okay. Got those three? All right. Madam Secretary, you ante up the first one. Council Bill 0009. Councilwoman Montero. Councilwoman Brooks, do either one of you want to put this on the floor or do you have comments or questions?
Speaker 0: I just have a.
Speaker 3: Question or comment. Councilmember. Same cattle. Montero. You can go ahead and begin.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This bill is a proposed loan agreement between the city and county of Denver and 48 Race LLC for land acquisition for a loan at 4800 Race Street and 4800 Vine Street. And I wanted to ask a member of OED, I'm not sure who's here tonight representing that agency to explain how it came, how it came out of committee in one way, and some changes were made. If you could come up to the podium and talk about it and see.
Speaker 1: Many. Council President Herndon Members of council. I'm Jeff Romaine and with the Office of Economic Development and I'm somewhat the project lead on this right now as we're moving forward on the land acquisition with you all see we presented to committee as you know this proposals we're working through some of the final deliberations. There was a tight timeframe as far as the negotiations. The borrower, you'll see in this case, continue the conversation with the land seller and negotiated the various terms and working through at the same time, there was a senior lender that was coming to for for this particular purchase and that senior lender asked for certain terms to be part of our contract in our part of our loan. So as you know, we're subordinated to that senior lender and we've worked through it at the same time. If you recall in the council, the council committee meeting originally we thought the land was going to cost come in at $6 million and that was going to be the purchase price as it worked out our, our, our borrower and as they've negotiated, actually, we're got the purchase price to be lowered. And so both of those things caused a little bit of change in the contract. Primarily, most of the contract changed of what we originally discussed and we thought we were going to move forward to no change because the senior lender.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, may I ask one more question? Is there someone from ULC that would come up to the podium, please, and talk about the project. Good evening. Urban Land Conservancy was, you know, been partnering with the city of Denver on this project. It's a six acre site that's located at 48th and raise. And it is that the primary purpose of this project is to address some of the housing needs that will result as in as a result of the I-70 realignment project. Basically, there will be about 53 or so households that will be displaced as a result of this, the I-70 realignment. And so this project is intended to replace that housing. It's also intended to serve as an economic development opportunity to create jobs. And that's actually one of the conditions of the financing that's being proposed by the OED, is that we will create, at a minimum, 26 jobs.
Speaker 3: Could you just say your name for the record?
Speaker 0: Oh, I apologize. Deborah Bustos, vice president of real estate for Urban Land Conservancy. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you. Thank you. Councilman Montero. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Deborah, can you stay at the at the mic? I appreciate you answering that question. Can you can you go on and specify the number of units or. I know you got all this is in design right now and we're really excited this is moving forward. But I'd love to see how close of a guesstimate you have.
Speaker 0: Sure. And actually, I would ask my coworker, Tony Pickett, who's our vice president of master site development, to join me because I'm on the acquisition side and do the negotiations with the seller. And then Tony gets to play with all of the designs. So I'll.
Speaker 3: Councilman, I.
Speaker 2: Can tell you our initial.
Speaker 3: Yield study shows just over 400.
Speaker 1: Units would be on the.
Speaker 3: Site with another approximately 25,000 square.
Speaker 1: Feet of commercial space.
Speaker 2: But that's not fixed. We still intend to have a very robust community engagement.
Speaker 1: Planning process to determine that. And and can you do your best to tell us what am I levels that these these housing units would be?
Speaker 3: I would say 60% of mine below.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay, great. So I want to give just a little credit right now, because Councilwoman Monteiro is being shy over here. But she, the Urban Land Conservancy and OED worked really hard to make sure that we had affordable housing where a ton of public and private investment is going. And Glover, Lurie, Swansea with the stock show, the I-70 Realignment and the the community conversation is what does community sustainability look like? And here we have 400 units, potentially 400 units going in, 53 of which of the displacement of I-70 in its current form is going to happen. And so this is I think this is a huge, huge coup for the city and for these neighborhoods. And I want to thank everybody who's been involved in this. Councilwoman Monteiro, obviously OED and ULC for being the leaders and making this come to fruition. Now, can we have a date when this is going to be.
Speaker 0: As.
Speaker 1: Well? No, no. As far as people moving in.
Speaker 3: I can tell you we're having some intense conversation about that. But subject to rezoning of the property and the completion of that community.
Speaker 1: Engagement.
Speaker 3: Planning process.
Speaker 1: I think we're about.
Speaker 3: December of 2016.
Speaker 1: Before we can actually see anything really happening on the site. Okay. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Monteiro.
Speaker 0: I. I'm good.
Speaker 2: You good? All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Well, that in another comments or questions on 0009, Madam Secretary, you want to tee up the next one, which I believe was 91, 2020. All right, Councilman Ortega, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 0: I just have a question.
Speaker 3: Garnet.
Speaker 0: Seem as far Chadwick in the audience. I believe she's the point person on this one. It's my recollection that when the Denver portion of the construction of the 16th Street Mall went before the RTD board, they required full payment up front.
|
Bill
|
Grants a 10 year loan in the amount of $1.5 million to 48Race, LLC (real estate holding company of the Urban Land Conservancy) for acquisition of 4800 Race Street and 4800 Vine Street in Council District 9. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Grants a 10 year loan in the amount of $1.5 million to 48Race, LLC (real estate holding company of the Urban Land Conservancy) for acquisition of 4800 Race Street and 4800 Vine Street in Council District 9
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03022015_14-1096
|
Speaker 7: Thank you. Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Deirdre Rose, Community Planning and Development. Before you as an application for a site in northeast Denver at 1770 200 is 36th Avenue. This is a proposed rezoning from sx3, which is suburban context mixed use three storey two smc's five or five story can in the Northeast in Council District 11, this is at the southwest corner of Quebec Street and 36th Avenue, just west of Stapleton, across Quebec. The applicant property owner is Quebec property one and two. Jeff Grassy The applicant is here tonight to answer questions. Current zoning on the site is SRM X three proposed as SRM x five. The subject property is to the north is some x three zoning also the same zoning as well as SCC three x. That is a suburban commercial corridor. Three story zoning to the south is ba3a business district from former Chapter 59 that was never rezone during the 2010 update. It's in a planned building group and then to the West as ESU, RDX or urban edge as a single unit d x, which allows both suburban and urban form homes on the subject site is a vacant parcel, and to the south of that site is a corridor along Quebec. You may remember this corridor is the Stapleton kind of the hotel corridor in the seventies that is transitioned over time. This is one of the redevelopments in that lower picture to the south. Please. And then to the north there is a hotel and a restaurant to the west. This to the west is an alley. And then the rear yards of the neighborhood to the west side and then to the east is Quebec, which is a fairly large arterial split as a not a parkway, but with greenspace going in between the north and south directions. The rezoning application is submitted to various agencies for comment. We've received no substantial comments from any of our review agencies and our survey for the site has been approved. Notice in public review it has been sent out from informational notice sent on October 24th, Planning Board recommended approval by a vote of 8 to 0. There were three letters of opposition from neighbors, not necessarily adjacent neighbors, but no one actually came to the hearing to speak against the item. Neighborhood and Planning Committee meeting was held in January 7th and notice was sent for city council. The Register neighborhood organizations included here included greater Greater Park Hill Community and Stapleton United Neighbors. We haven't received an official response from these Arnaud's. The review criteria for rezoning include consistency with adopted plans, the uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. We also look at justifying circumstances for the rezoning and then consistency with the neighborhood context, the zone district purpose and the intent. So within our adopted plans, we have comprehensive plan 2000. We have Blueprint Denver, our land use and transportation plan, and then a fairly older plan of Park Hill neighborhood plan. I'll go over a brief highlights. These are also in your staff report in greater detail within comprehensive plan. 2000 highlighted our policies regarding legacies and land use to encourage quality infill development, encouraging redevelopment of vacant and underutilized land, identifying areas in which increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated. Certainly vacant parcels along corridors that are redeveloping to fit that description and conserving land throughout the city by promoting infill where services and infrastructure are already in place. And in this case, by virtue of the fact that it is adjacent to Quebec and to 36th, an existing infrastructure, that that situation does exist within Blueprint Denver, the site is actually identified as single family residential. This is one of those sites within the city that taken out a 30,000 foot view blueprint. Denver didn't look at every parcel in great detail and certainly parcels along the Quebec corridor, which has historically been commercial, would be fit into one of those parcels that deserve further analysis. Within Blueprint Denver, there is a concept called Reinvestment Area, and even in an area of stability, you do have areas that would benefit from reinvestment through modest infill or redevelopment or major projects in a smaller area. In this particular vacant site that is to the east of a stable residential neighborhood. Fitz fits that description. Staff believes, and it is a reinvestment area for targeted growth. Quebec is identified as a commercial arterial, which is one of the very most widespread commercial street types. It's historically auto oriented. Over time, we have seen, especially with our mixed use districts in the new code street and sidewalk improvements with new development that provide a better pedestrian friendly access to these sites. Because Stapleton's to the east and Stapleton has been an area of change and has generated a lot of commercial activity. There is actually quite a bit of pedestrian activity that comes from the west across Quebec. So the connection to the area of change generating a lot of the improvements is important in this case and the site is pivotal to that. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan identifies that there's a need to develop vacant land with compatible context sensitive uses. Quebec is designated in that plan as a Quebec street corridor, where it's encouraged to maintain the viability of the corridor. And that also means looking at transitions in land use over time. Certainly when the hotels in Stapleton left, there were definitely opportunities for that transition to occur. Also to create sensitive transitions between commercial industrial uses and residential areas, improving corridors and other shopping nodes for residents in adjacent neighborhoods, and then voluntary urban design guidelines were sort of established in that plan to encourage pedestrian oriented ground floor redevelopment. So some of the tenants in the plan would a would exist at least as plan guidance upon redevelopment of the site. The MAP Amendment does result in regulations that are uniform across the district. This means that the Smc's five or propose zone district for mixed use is already a mixed use district or simply asking for an increase in height that would result in the same application of that district at this site as it would anywhere else in the city where it's owned some x five. There are no waivers or conditions or special changes to this district on the site. The proposal furthers the public health, safety and welfare, provides for a modest reinvestment of major projects in a small area along the evolving Quebec corridor and development of vacant underutilized land promotes eyes in the street and improves the neighborhood edge. Within justifying circumstances pursuant to Arizona Code Section 1214 eight, the land or its surrounding environment has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area. Again, it's west of Stapleton, along a commercial arterial that has historically been developed as a nonresidential land use. Now this is continuing to evolve it so that there is even a better transition to the residential to the West. The same X5 district suburban context which is characterized by multiple uses, typically less vertical and mixed use that can be vertical mixed use. You do see some commercial strips in office parks. Reinvestment would allow for a variety of building forms to occur here for a modest increase in height at this location, sensitive transitions to the residential block to the west would would be afforded within this district. The intent of the some x five is to apply it to areas served by collectors or arterial streets where building heights of 1 to 5 stories are desired. Here's a little comparison for us. Some X three and some x five. So the district that it currently is zoned as some x three has a current height limitation of 45 feet. The request essentially asks for a height increase of 1515 feet to 70 feet, sorry, 25 feet and then storeys. There are three stories allowed. You would allow five storeys, so five storeys and 70 feet. The location for an some x three typically is on a slightly less busy streets, a local or collector streets. Here the S-Max five is appropriate for collectors or arterials. Upper story setbacks are also important at this location because it is to the west is the residential neighborhood in the SM x three where a building goes up to 27 feet high. There would be a 15 foot setback in into the site to provide for a height transition adjacent to residential in the SM x five. There's an additional 15 foot setback when you get the building at 51 feet. So there's a total of 35 feet setback if you have a building that's taller than 51 feet and that's not set back from the ground. It's an upper story setback, essentially. So with that and that comparison, CPD recommends approval of this zone district finding that all criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Ross. We have one speaker this evening and Mr. Jeff Crosby.
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. And City Council. My name is Jeff Grassi. I live in Denver at 463 Locust Street. I'm here to answer any questions that city council may have.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Mr. Grandy. That concludes our speakers. Now, moving to questions, are there any questions of members of council? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 0: Mr. Garza, can you just give us some idea of what you plan to put there?
Speaker 8: At this point, we would love to see something like a retirement home retirement center with retail space on the ground floor. Beauty shop, convenience store, that type of thing. We don't have any plans on the drawing boards. We're in the process of negotiating with another with a developer, actually, who's worked on some other projects with us and see what we can do with it. But as far as anything concrete, no, there's nothing really on the drawing board at this point.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other questions on accountability in 96? All right. Seen none. The public hearing on 1096 is closed on and we'll move to comments. And as this is in Council District 11, I will speak I something I drive by nearly every day an opportunity for something better than just this empty lot I am certainly excited about, and I certainly hope my colleagues will support this. I just do find it interesting that just east of the site is one of our infamous red light cameras at 36 in Quebec. So just thought I'd just throw that out just for a good laugh. All right. Any other comments from members of the Council on 1096? Scene and we are ready for roll call. Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 5: BROOKS Hi. Brown Hi, Fats.
Speaker 0: I can eat Lemon Lopez.
Speaker 5: I. Monteiro. Nevitt. Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Sussman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 3939 Council Bill 1096 has passed. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property at 7200 East 36th Avenue from S-MX-3 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 3 stories) to S-MX-5 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 5 stories) in Council District 11. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 7200 East 36th Avenue from S-MX-3 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 3 stories) to S-MX-5 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 5 stories) in Council District 11. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-7-15
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02232015_15-0057
|
Speaker 2: We have 11 eyes council bill 57 has been amended. The winner. A courtesy public hearing for counsel. Bill 57 is open. Maybe we have a staff report.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Madam President. Members of city council. I'm Brad Buchanan. I'm the director executive director in community planning and development. I'm just going to make a couple of introductory comments to our are courtesy public hearing this evening about the various one see a plan and I really by by way of background and sort of perspective about what we're doing tonight. You know, every neighborhood plan that we work on is so critically important to our city and they are all transformational. And in some ways they're all the same. They have very much similar pieces and parts to them, but they're all radically different from each other, as different as each of those neighborhoods that those plans seek to represent and envision their future. And as we were talking about this particular plan, I really I felt that I wanted to give a couple of shout outs to the process and to some folks who have had some really important roles in this process. And I'll start with a letter that is was written by Councilwoman Monteiro in November of 2012 to Mayor Hancock calling out the the number of important planning efforts that were going on in and around. Gloria Swanson. I'll just quickly read through them. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan. There is Swansea, a neighborhood plan, the river North Plan River, North Greenway Master Plan 41st and Fox Stationary Plan, a national Western Stock Show Stationary Plan, The Brighton Boulevard Core Study 38th and Blake Station plan and the Heron Pond Natural Area Plan. There was a huge amount of planning going on in an area that had been underserved for so long, and Councilman Monteiro called that to all of our attention, our city's attention, and out of that vision and her stewardship to the area, a whole bunch of amazing things came out of that. And, and we truly have a whole greater than the sum of its parts. And that's what's so amazing and fantastic about this planning effort is the result is a place and a vision, a vision, excuse me, greater than the sum of its parts. Some of the innovations that came out of this process that I think have been so important, the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative, which directly came from Councilman Monteiro, is pointing out that we had a lot of cat herding in the planning perspective to get done. And in our real our first significant health impact assessment that was done as part of our planning process and considered through how we really could answer the question How do we create a healthy community? In Elyria, Swansea Council, Monteiro brought forward a focus and a perspective and a prioritization around the history and the culture of the neighborhood that really has been. She has been the steadfast holder of that space through our entire planning process. And I think we it's it our planners have been made better for our planning process has been made better for it. She also led the global area Swansea, a housing advisory council which led to Urban Land Conservancy purchasing 4800 Race Street, which is going to be a significantly transformational site for the neighborhood and and a number of projects through sort of neighborhood revitalization projects, bike lanes on 45th and 47th walking path in Argo Park that's just under construction now, just broke ground recently and is under construction now. We're just getting started and there is a ton of work to get done and the visioning part is just the first important but first part. Now we move towards implementation in the years of implementation that we're going to need to to make this vision a reality. But I know that we we know that we came into this process with the right vision, with commitment. And I believe this the plan is of, by and for the neighborhood, truly a vision of the neighborhood that that our planners have had the privilege of helping to document and facilitate. But again, there is much, much work to be done. And we'll be talking about some of that tonight as well. I'm now going to introduce Tim Watkins and Steve Nally, our planners who have been who have been working on the plan for quite some time now. Thanks. Good evening and thank you, Brad, for the introduction.
Speaker 11: Steve Now I know we've had the opportunity to represent community planning and development as project managers of the Illyria and Swansea Neighborhoods Planning Process over the past two years. The opportunity to work with community members in a very collaborative process, and we're pleased to present to you this evening the results of that process in the plan for your consideration this evening. The O'Leary and Swansea neighborhoods are located in North Denver, just a few miles from downtown Denver, along what Mayor Hancock has identified as a corridor of opportunity between downtown and Denver International Airport. The planning study area is bounded by the South Platte River to the west, where Illyria and Globeville. Neighborhoods. Me to the north is 54th Avenue, the shared county boundary of the Adams County. To the east is Colorado Boulevard. South is 40th Avenue, and there are three planned commuter rail stations that will serve the neighborhoods in the next few years, including the National Western Center Station area, the 40th and Colorado station area, which includes portions of the Northeast, Park Hill and Clayton neighborhoods and southwest Elyria, extends into the area covered by the adopted 38th and Blake Station area plan. Recognizing significant public investments coming to Elyria, Swansea, Globeville and the River North neighborhoods. The North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative was established to coordinate six major projects. These projects have been carefully considered and coordinated with the neighborhood planning process, including for commuter rail stations along three corridors that extend from downtown Seattle's I-70 reconstruction project. The city's redesign and reconstruction of Brighton Boulevard improvements to the River North Area, National Western Center Master Planning and Redevelopment and the Globeville and Elyria Swansea plans. At key points during the concurrent planning efforts, joint meetings were held between the Illyria, Swansea and Globeville neighborhoods. This led to a lined neighborhood vision's at the river boundary and served to inform the National Western Center planning process, which provides greater detail for a year round entertainment, cultural and educational complex. The Globeville Plan was adopted in December 2014. Gloria Swanson Neighborhood Plans is presented to you for consider for potential adoption this evening, and the National Western Center Master Plan will be presented for potential adoption on March 9th. This neighborhood planning process is built on community input collected through numerous public meetings and through extended public outreach. We are grateful to residents and business representatives that served on a neighborhood steering committee and for the collaboration with Council District nine, North Denver, Cornerstone Collaborative and other partner agencies and community organizations that helped us to engage numerous English and Spanish speaking resident participants. When asked what they like about living in Illyria. In Swansea, residents highlighted schools, parks, recreation centers. The library and churches as places to gather.
Speaker 4: To recreate.
Speaker 8: Socialize and learn. They also like the.
Speaker 11: Lower cost of housing in the area and appreciate unique historic sites such as the National Western Center and the Riverside.
Speaker 4: Cemetery.
Speaker 11: When asked what would make the neighborhoods a better place to live and work, we heard concerns related to crossing conflicts along active railways that extend throughout the neighborhoods. Air quality and noise impacts from major highways, including I-70, Vasquez and Colorado boulevards. And impacts such as odors, noise and wayward truck traffic to the core residential area from surrounding industrial uses. Most of the desired improvements that we heard relate to connectivity, including safety concerns and the lack of convenience in getting around. There have also been repeated concerns or fears that displacement will result from raising property taxes and rents. Other issues identified include missing or aging infrastructure such as sidewalks, unpaved alleys, dimly lit streets, unimproved bus stops and stormwater that pulls along streets and alleys. There is also a desire to see vacant and underutilized property converted to desired services such as groceries, banking and health clinics. This could help to add safety to areas where unsupervised, underutilized properties can attract illicit activity and even crime and property vandalism. However, such services require a neighborhood population greater than the current population of 6500 residents. Community input has been categorized under four guiding principles as the organizing structure for this plan. They include a unique, strong, connected and healthy Illyria in Swansea. These sections describe issues and opportunities and provide recommendations and strategies that imply throughout the study area. There are also six character area sections that provide more area specific recommendations, including transformative projects. Transformative projects are necessary to implement to achieve the full vision spelled out in this plan. The unique section of the plan looks at building on the history, defining culture and social structure, and embracing an enterprising economy by attracting cleaner and more job rich industries. It also explores placemaking opportunities as new and public private investments are made in the community. In the strong section, the Future Land Use Map encourages a well organized relationship of diverse land uses for improved quality of life and economic vitality. Key land use concepts include transit oriented development near three rail stations. Industrial mixed use areas that encourage lighter and cleaner employment. Uses that could create a buffer between residential areas and surrounding heavy, heavier industrial uses. The Single-Family duplex area is intended to preserve the existing character and scale of the residential area while allowing for modest infill and redevelopment or excuse me, modest infill and reinvestment. Make that correction mixed uses at key locations. Could accommodate neighborhood services and additional residents, and a town center could be oriented around a potential second cover over I-70 closed still Vasquez Interchange. The plan also provides urban design strategies, including a building heights map that recommends appropriate transitions from lower scale residential to higher density uses near the rail stations. The established single family duplex areas are limited to two and a half stories, with adjacent mixed use and employment areas stepping up to three stories closer to the rail stations. The recommended heights transition from 3 to 5 and eight stories to encourage transit oriented development. The area in southwest, O'Leary is shown at eight stories with an asterisks which suggests that up to 12 stories could be explored in strategic location locations throughout excuse me, exploring strategic locations through discussion and collaboration with the community and applicable neighborhood organizations. Building heights in this location and at the location near the National Western Center were the topic of a supplemental public meeting. Held is one of the conditions for planning board.
Speaker 9: Approval of this plan.
Speaker 11: The strong section also provides storm drainage and water quality strategies, such as intercepting regional stormwater flows to protect the neighborhood from urban flooding. This would also protect future investments, such as a lowered I-70 freeway and the National Western Center complex. Additionally, new development could introduce green streets that filter pollutants from storm runoff and create an attractive and attractive amenity as part of a.
Speaker 8: Walkable urban.
Speaker 11: Environment. The community would like to see improvements to existing parks and recreation facilities and to safely access them with enhanced sidewalks and bicycle routes. New open space areas are also recommended along the South Platte River. And clauses throughout the future. National Western Center Complex. Other opportunities include the proposed cover. Over 70 next to this. Once here, there's the Arrow's Swansea Elementary School and shared use of the open space of Bruce Randolph School near 40th and Colorado. To address the concern of displacement. The strong section refers to the Denver housing plan and encourages partnership partnerships to create affordable and mixed use housing, especially near transit. There's also an opportunity to explore replacement of housing that is being acquired for the I-70 reconstruction project. Housing strategies also refer to rehabilitation and energy saving programs that could benefit residents. Another strategy focused on focuses on local job training that could be coordinated and aligned between residents and businesses to be recruited in the neighborhood. And Education Strategies Encourage Coordination with Denver Public Schools. School readiness programs for children and adults. Training programs including food growing and health and wellness training opportunities. There is a potential synergy to be achieved with current programs offered by Focus Points Resource Center in the neighborhood, the Grow House and the emerging partnership between the National Western Center. Colorado State University. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science and History, Colorado. Thanks Tim. Good evening. I am Steve Nally with Community Planning and Development Co Project Manager with him on the O'Leary's. What's your plan? And I'm going to cover the Connected chapter, which is the next guiding principle. The plan recommends improvements for several rail and street crossing conflicts, including an outdated York Brighton Boulevard underpass that prohibits trucks from passing north into Adams County. You can see it's pictured in the top right and it seems that it has been struck a few times by trucks. It is it is getting bigger over time, but it does need to be expanded in the future. 47th in York, where pedestrians, cars and trucks are held up multiple times each day due to train stacking and loading operations. And then the inactive market rail underpass, which creates a 25 foot deep channel that impedes access to future 40th and Colorado stations pictured in the bottom right. This is the multi-modal connectivity map, which provides multiple recommendations for improved neighborhood connectivity, including new streets and pedestrian connections to the river and to Globeville through and along the future. National Western Center redevelopment area. Also North-South connections over the future. I-70 Partial cover lowered alternative to make multimodal connections more convenient a frontage road system along 46th Avenue and I-70 that balances vehicular traffic with surrounding land uses and then last zero potential for new streets to be built into d redevelopment areas for improved connectivity. The plan also recommended recommends improving truck route system to better serve industrial areas and keep trucks out of residential areas. One example is an extension of 52nd Avenue from Colorado Boulevard to Brighton and York Street, which could provide truck access. 825 Adams County to the Northwest and Colorado to the east. This could help to reduce the truck demand onto Brighton and York Street to the south. This is the missing sidewalks map. You can see the the red on the map indicates the sidewalk is missing. One of the greatest needs identified by the community was to improve neighborhood walkability by adding more sidewalks. Missing sidewalks, again shown in red. And some of the key areas are along 40th Avenue, near Bruce Randolph School and around Dunham Park indicated by the Arrows. The plan does prioritize sidewalk improvements near the rail stations along 40th Avenue, around Dunton Park and Brighton Boulevard. Also, the plan recommends pedestrian priority intersections identified for potential crosswalks and pedestrian activated signals. More arrows. All right. The bike network there today. There are only sound bike routes in the neighborhood. There are no actual facilities in the street. So a number of of bike facilities are recommended to connect residents to the neighborhood amenities such as parks and schools. Some streets, such as Clayton and Cook Street, require further study and neighborhood input. Bike route recommendations in this plan fit within the greater bike route system and do tie in to the citywide team. Removed bike and pedestrian plan. This map highlights today's ten minute walk around three future rail stations in the neighborhood based on the existing street network doesn't necessarily mean there are sidewalks on these streets to get to the station, but just there. But there are streets in place. With all of the recommendations recommended in the plan and strategies recommended in the plan, the potential expanded ten minute walk highlighted in red could result from from building these new streets. As you can see, a lot more area in close proximity to the station stations. The next guiding principle is the healthy chapter. The healthy guiding principle, as Brad mentioned, health impact assessment, or HIPAA was completed for Globeville, Illyria and Swansea. It was conducted by the Department of Environmental Health as part of the neighborhood planning process. The recommendations are summarized in a healthy section and cross-referenced throughout the plan to highlight the relationship between the built environment, physical activity and health. Some of the recommendations within that section two examples here are breaking up the large blocks with new connections to create shorter trips and more walkable urban environment, and also to increase tree canopy cover and open space areas with new development. These maps show that Illyria in Swansea has larger than average block sizes surrounding the residential area due to large industrial uses of railways and highways and that less than average tree canopy cover compared to the other neighborhoods in the city, as indicated on the map below. All right. So those are the guiding principles moving into the six character areas. There are six in the plan, starting with the National Western Center and station area. There's also the 30th and Blake Station area, the 40th and Colorado station area as the traditional residential area, kind of reflecting where most of the homes are today. And then the industrial area, the sixth is the I-70 reconstruction area that kind of spans across multiple character areas within the plan. So starting with the residential character area, the the plan details how residents could benefit economically from modest infill development next to existing single family homes and duplexes. Tandem houses, for example. And the ones pictured in the graphics could be built behind a street fronting residents and either sold or rented out ten of houses and other building forms. Under two and a half. Stories could help to bring investment and stability to residential areas and help to bring more residents and increase the demand for neighborhood services. The transformative project within the traditional residential area is to study east west connectivity north of I-70 up to 49th, including the 47th and York interchange. You can see there's a resident waiting to continue with her evening, but there's a train in the way and she has no other option of getting east or west. Also, key recommendations from this within the traditional residential area and then also in the industrial area is to improve the relationship between industrial and residential uses. The graphic on top kind of transitions from residential to light industrial flex to heavy industrial. Also on the bottom of this slide, there are recommendations in the plan to show possible landscaping and streetscape improvements that could soften the abrupt transition where residential and industrial uses are likely to remain in place. Moving to the I-70 reconstruction character area, the plan provides detailed recommendations for see, that's I-70, a partial cover lowered alternative. There have been a number of a lot of discussion about I-70, as it is a very major project taking place in the neighborhood through multiple meetings. One example of something beneficial that came out of the meeting was, as you can see, the image on the left of the slide is the proposed cover at Swansea Elementary School and the initial. There was a there's a street or frontage road in between Swansea Elementary and the cover through. A lot of discussion. The frontage road was removed in a later alternative, creating a combined facility for Swansea Elementary School. And that and that cover. Also, here's an image of our view of the Swansea cover looking south along the frontage road where mixed use redevelopment could bring housing a neighborhood around around the cover to create a neighborhood center with increased activity and extra eyes on the cover for added safety. Here's an example of an another strategy for improving the PCL to encourage creativity and in the freeway sound walls. And the plan really tries to inspire thought and creativity and not just thinking of our typical concrete walls, but getting creative and mitigating noise. The plan also recommends a second cover at Steel Vasquez. This cover is different than the cover proposed at Swansea Elementary School. The Swansea Elementary School cover is intended to be an asset for recreation, a playground for the school and more of a park Parklife Park like feature. The second cover is quite visionary and is a long term idea where the cover itself will, where it's adjacent to fairly large parcels, could be a catalyst for redevelopment around the Steel and Vasquez interchange on large parcels of land. This cover needs a lot more discussion with the community and and how it could be implemented. It's currently not funded as part of the set out project. The next character area is the National Western Center and Station area. You all have been briefed many times on the the pending National Western Center masterplan. This plan recommends land use for the entire station area and focuses more on the station area part of National Western. In addition to the new street connections, the three National Western, there are also a number of new connections, such as 49th Avenue at the DPS site and then future Brighton Boulevard, north of I-70. Here is a glimpse of the masterplan. The response to your plan recommendations are reflected in this detailed National Western Center masterplan. There are new streets and pedestrian connections between Elyria and Globeville, including a new national western drive, a street that was named Betty Kram. Drive through that process, Betty Graham is here tonight. The concept shows over 46 acres of open space and public plaza that could be used by visitors and by the community. The next character area is the 40th in Colorado station area coming in 2016. All right.
Speaker 9: Got to the ready, Grant.
Speaker 11: The 49 Colorado station is the second stop along the east corridor between downtown Indiana and is due to open again in next year. This time next year, potentially planning recommendations for improved connectivity. Connectivity are a priority in 2015, and funding is being identified to make sidewalk improvements to the station platform by opening day. The vision for this station area is to provide workforce housing and lighter, cleaner mixed use industrial jobs to complement the varied stations between downtown Indiana. The station area planning also looks south of 40th Avenue, where possible new 39th Avenue Green Street is recommended. And that's picture on the slide to improve storm drainage and connectivity along an unused rail line. Here's a graphic of the existing condition for the unused rail line known as the market lead. It does create a 25 foot deep underpass or channel that prevents access to access for residents to the west to get east to the future rail station. The plan recommends acquiring the market lead, filling the underpass channel, potentially using the dirt from I-70, heading workforce housing and a pocket park to create a successful transition from the lower scale residential to the west to the hired inner city transit oriented development area to the east and closer to the station. The final character area is the 38th and Blake Station, the Elyria. In Swansea, a Plan City area extends into the adopted 38th and Blake Station area plan so that the 38th Blake Plan was adopted in 2009. Delirious wants to plan updates, future land use and building height recommendations of that plan, but only within a year in Swansea . A. All other recommendations in the 30th and Blake Stationery plan are reinforced by the Illyria and Swansea a plan. So the moving forward sections broken down into implementation priorities. The first is related to regulatory and policy, which encourages a focus on rezoning of land to improve residential and industrial edges and to focus on improving connectivity and safety . Public investment is the next category of priorities, which focuses on leveraging major projects as well as street, alley, sidewalk and lighting improvements and pursuing the acquisition of the BNSF market lead for connectivity and redevelopment. The last implementation priority or partnerships? The plan does encourage residents to form a one or many registered neighborhood organizations and to work with partners such as in DCC, DMR Police Neighborhood Inspection Services for improved neighborhood conditions. It also recommends working with affordable and mixed income housing to developers, focusing on economic development initiatives and coordinating job training opportunities. I went to a planning board on January 7th where we had our public meeting. The public at that meeting requested more time to review the plan following the holiday season. So the hearing was continued to January 21st. Prior to the 21st meeting, we had an additional public meeting to work through. Comments and questions on the plan. We held that meeting on the 12th will an additional meeting on the 16th to discuss the plan with Swansea School parents at the January 21st meeting. The plan edits were proposed based on the public meetings we held. Prior public testimony was generally supportive. There was one unresolved issue and that was building heights near to rail stations. So the planning board voted to approve by unanimous vote based on their criteria, which is to find that the plan is consistent with other plans, that it was an inclusive public process and takes a long term view. And then the conditions were to incorporate the edits that were presented to them that day, to add edited for clarity and correctness, and then also to incorporate the groups, incorporate the changes from the public meetings that were the public meeting that was held to discuss building heights. So with that stuff recommends adoption of the Elyria and Swansea Neighborhoods Plan as a supplement to the Denver plan. There's one more thing I'd like to add. Just after the close of recess, two additional members of the community arrived and would like to speak. One of them was in Elizabeth, one of the most devoted members of all of the planning efforts and globally responsive. The other is at Bell so property owner and 40th in Colorado station area. If you see fit to allow them to speak they would greatly appreciate that opportunity.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, how do we handle that?
Speaker 7: I guess that your your your call. But you have 19 speakers so far so and if you limit it to our you. I don't. They may or may not. Okay.
Speaker 2: So this is in our courtesy public hearing. And I'll I'll take comments from other members of council if you want to weigh in on this. Oh, okay. So what I what I propose is that the other 19 speakers are allowed to go ahead of you. And depending on how much time we have within the hour, we can certainly try to fit the two speakers and I'll keep that fine with everybody. Yes, right. All right. As we said earlier, we have 19 speakers, possibly 19, 20, 21 speakers. So what I would like to do at this point is invite the first five speakers up to the front and they are as follows. Jude, Dr. Thomas Anthony. Chad Ramirez. Brenda Vasquez and and Hayes. Through Dutcher. Welcome.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Drew Dutcher. I have lived.
Speaker 0: At 4653 High Street in Elyria since buying a home there in 2007, about going on eight years.
Speaker 6: I have actively participated in this planning process, and I'm also a member of.
Speaker 0: The National Western Citizens Advisory Committee, and I was the Elyria.
Speaker 6: Representative on the I-70 East Pact between 2010 and 2012. Without going into a lot of details, I very enthusiastically support this plan.
Speaker 0: I think it's long overdue, but I feel that this this at last.
Speaker 6: This area, this city is finally getting the attention it deserves. I thank the planning department and Tim and Steve. They've done a fantastic job on this plan. I think it points positively into the future and it shows great promise. The plan.
Speaker 0: Embeds various public works projects that are sorely needed but are.
Speaker 6: Not yet funded.
Speaker 0: I feel that whenever we talk about Clarion Swansea though.
Speaker 6: We have to talk about the elephant in the room and that elephant is the planned widening of Interstate 70 through these neighborhoods.
Speaker 0: While the partially covered, lowered alternative.
Speaker 6: Is infinitely better than widening.
Speaker 0: The existing elevated viaduct, there's still too many unanswered questions to really for these residents, most of my neighbors to really support the I-70 plan.
Speaker 6: Just quickly, there's not evidence really that this widening is justified to ten lanes. It's based on a ten year old study.
Speaker 0: We still have not really gotten a health study performed that's required under NEPA.
Speaker 6: Many residents have expressed concern that this may possibly violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Speaker 0: Would this project be forced on wealthier, nonwhite communities?
Speaker 6: Last Thursday, the Transportation Commission endorsed the design build, finance, operate, maintain mechanism.
Speaker 0: This basically turns the project over to a private consortium.
Speaker 6: What we are concerned about is that how will any of the promises made to Elyria, Swansea residents regarding mitigation ever be kept under this financing mechanism? Do these neighborhoods assume all the risks and all the downsides.
Speaker 8: In this.
Speaker 0: Venture? All other parties profit from widening I-70. The local businesses, the National Western Rhino Taxi. The city and county of Denver. The airport and the region as a whole.
Speaker 6: How will residents of Elyria, Swansea endure this construction? Are we displaced? For how long? What about the contamination and pollution during construction?
Speaker 2: DUTCHER Here, 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 6: Okay. There are many questions that need to be answered before we can.
Speaker 0: We can back this.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Our next speaker is Mr. Anthony.
Speaker 3: Madam Chairwoman and members of the council. I'm Tom Anthony. I had some written testimony I was going to hand in and jotted down some thoughts during the previous presentation. I've lived in 5001 National Western Drive for 17 years with my two little youngest boys, were born there in home births, and I won the Neighborhood Star Award in 2010 for my auntie and was honored with my for forming my group clean it that got the the Shattuck chemical site cleaned up down in 1805 South Beneke from Overland and West University neighborhoods back in 2004. I am. Helped finance and develop the Illyria Neighborhood Vision Plan in 2006 that showed I-70 below grade for the first time, identified the site at 28th and Brighton for the art to the North Metro line and put in a bridge across the globe below 50th and Emerson how elements that have been adopted in the city's planning process.
Speaker 8: But the city's planning process has also been flawed.
Speaker 3: I'm currently exchanging motions with young Nathan Lucero, who was testifying earlier as to whether or not I wind up getting to stay in my house or not.
Speaker 2: Mr. Anthony, can you please stick to the.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Well, our neighborhood doesn't have a neighborhood group because our neighborhood leaders get targeted by the city and retaliated against for bringing up things and issues that.
Speaker 8: They happen to disagree with.
Speaker 2: Have a seat or not. Mr. Anthony, please have a seat. Thank you. Our next speaker is Chad Ramirez.
Speaker 8: But typically at Swansea. Harris.
Speaker 2: You can start again. Thank you.
Speaker 8: So I was going to say that I'm really not for that I 70 deal at all but so on then the other thing is that connector the gentleman was talking about sending 52nd Avenue westbound from Vasquez. I don't know. You guys are probably had your mom tell you to stay on the block when you're riding your bike. So a lot of kids right in that area over there. And there's a lot of kids. There's a park on 52nd Avenue. Years ago, we fought long and hard to keep the trucks out of the neighborhood. And this would just be a thoroughfare for the trucks to go. So I don't think that's a good idea in the plan. I think a lot of it is all right. But I also think in that closing, Josephine, that's another thing that they're talking about. And we really don't think that closing General Josephine Street would be very good. They'd rather be counterproductive. And it actually would probably close a corridor of opportunity for locals. And then the bikeable and walkable area is a good idea. You know, if because right now we don't really have access to the light rail station, there are quite a ways, quite a ways away. And so what I'd like to see in the plan is some of this ground work take off for the area.
Speaker 0: Residents.
Speaker 8: As far as the sidewalks and the bikeable ways to get to the light rail stations as far as a RTD just really blew by us, you know, closed off. And the opportunity, our corridor of opportunity by not putting a light rail station at Clayton or Steel Street. So it's going to be tough to get over to those stations. So and then the other thing is when we're still somewhat of a rural area in the neighborhood and you guys have made a distinction between the neighborhoods and the commerce, the areas of commerce. So I want you to remember that. And everybody remember that that we are a neighborhood, we're a residential area. There were our homes are and yeah, we're still kind of in a rural area and we kind of like that. Our lots might be big and we like that. We appreciate our property rights and we hope everybody will respect that. And let me see the town central that they're talking about over the second the second cover. You know, I've seen town centers around the country and they're usually dominated by the multinational and the national corporations.
Speaker 2: Time's up. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 8: All right.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So thank you, Miss Vasquez. Followed by in Hays. Good evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
Speaker 2: My name.
Speaker 1: Is Brenda Vasquez and we are property owners on.
Speaker 2: 46th and Josephine.
Speaker 1: We have on.
Speaker 2: The property for over ten years and we've been attending meetings for ten years as well.
Speaker 1: We own a strip mall and in that strip mall.
Speaker 2: We have several businesses.
Speaker 1: These businesses are.
Speaker 12: Owned by self-employed.
Speaker 1: Individuals. So they're locals. They are the old neighborhood businesses. So there's no chains involved. And they they have built relationships with the.
Speaker 2: Individuals in the area. Swansea, a.
Speaker 1: Neighborhood. The success of the businesses and by the way, we have very low turnover in our retail areas. The businesses include a restaurant, a cell phone store. We have an ice cream store, also a gym that supports the students at Swans here.
Speaker 12: And another business that is similar to.
Speaker 2: AA and they work primarily with Spanish.
Speaker 1: Speaking clients. So the success of the business is primarily supported by accessibility. So with the closing of Josephine and some other recommendations, those would severely impact these individuals who have been in business with us for 13 to 15 years. So what I would encourage the Council to remember these individuals and I would encourage you to go and visit the businesses and talk to those owners. Without the accessibility, they will not be successful in their businesses. They as I said, it's a lot of relationship building that has allowed them to be successful in their business and that can only be strengthened with accessibility walkability.
Speaker 2: To those individuals. We understand that the need for eastbound I-70.
Speaker 1: But I think we need to continue to to honor the individuals and the businesses that have been created over the last decades.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vasquez and Hayes. Good evening, Madam President. Members of the Council. My name is Ann Hayes, and I am a citizen of Denver. But more importantly, for this moment, I am. I'm with Westfield Company. And we are owners as of July of this past year of a 14 acre property on Upper Brighton Boulevard between 40th and 43rd.
Speaker 7: On the East.
Speaker 2: Side. So basically across from the Coliseum, it is within the the neighborhood of Elyria, Swansea. And that is why I'm here, is to express my support for this neighborhood plan. Since our purchase of the property, I have gotten very involved in many of the neighborhood efforts.
Speaker 1: Including.
Speaker 2: The tail end of this planning process, but also have joined the National Western Advisory Committee, the Brighton Boulevard Working Group, the Brighton Boulevard, or Reno Art District, Business Improvement District Working Group. So I have gotten to know many of the people.
Speaker 1: In the neighborhoods nearby.
Speaker 2: Our property and I do want to express that the there seems to be a lot of outreach that is still would be desired by the neighbors and express our desire to continue with the outreach to the neighbors and hoping to bring a really quality redevelopment project at this location, which is right next to 38th and Blake Transit Station. So again, I just want to express our support for this plan and hopefully it will pass. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Hayes. Our next group is Steve Kenny, Betty Cram, Jimmy Bacon, Thad Tasker and Gilbert Vasquez. If you could please come up to the front. Welcome.
Speaker 11: Thank you very much for this opportunity.
Speaker 6: To be here and.
Speaker 4: Talk with you. My name is Steve Kenny. I'm a resident of.
Speaker 6: The Berkeley neighborhood.
Speaker 4: My home is 4876 Tennyson Street. It is my opinion that Elyria and Swansea.
Speaker 9: Deserve every bit of.
Speaker 4: Attention. Dedication of resources and funding for these programs, probably more so than any other neighborhoods or communities in this city. They've been neglected in a really, really bad way for many, many decades.
Speaker 6: I've attended meetings about the neighborhood plan. I've read much of the neighborhood plan, and there's.
Speaker 4: Much of it that impresses me very, very much.
Speaker 9: There's a lot of very good work in here.
Speaker 6: However, I am very.
Speaker 4: Very concerned and in some ways appalled that the city and Denver could be in any way supporting anything that is related to see. That's plan to make the freeway 3.2 times wider. Literally right.
Speaker 8: Through the middle.
Speaker 4: Of these communities. The the goals of this program.
Speaker 0: Are.
Speaker 4: Disjointed connectivity. I don't see how tripling the width of I-70 can possibly help with the connectivity of these communities and tearing out neighborhood shopping centers. Tearing out places where people gather. Reducing the number of options that kids from the from Swansea Elementary School have to cross the freeway. A next goal is missing missing services. Expanding the freeway is not going to help that. There's no possible way.
Speaker 2: Can you can you loop your comments back to the earlier response here?
Speaker 4: I sure will. Thank you. So I think that especially for environmental issues, nuisances, crime, property neglect, it's imperative that the city support things that will help the neighborhood and that absolutely, positively has nothing to do with tripling the width of I-70 until we have a plan. And that would include CDOT doing SDI, SDI, a supplemental draft environmental impact study of the I-270 and I-76.
Speaker 3: Reroute and conversion of.
Speaker 4: The current I-70.
Speaker 3: Through Globeville.
Speaker 4: Elyria and Swansea. We cannot be supporting a plan that supports the tripling of the width of I-70.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Let's see. Our next speaker is Betty Cram, followed by Jimmy Bacon Fantastica and Gilbert Vasquez. Hmm. Thank you very much and thank you for letting me talk. It all sounds so grandiose. Everything they've done. Beautiful, beautiful. But it isn't. That's where we're Elyria Swansea. And we're Elyria Swansea. And that's what we are. And we don't care for all of this. Others, please take a tour with me as we take a little ride with me from 47th Avenue to 40th Avenue. And it's going to be kind of a road bike path because we do need a bike. We need a bike path for some people, especially for a for Adam, who works there at the girl horse. He rides a bike all the time. So he needs the bike path they took. They wanted to build a street past the school, but I said, no, we need we they Josefine we don't need a Columbine street. I think it would be too close to the school as we go south, cross over I-70 and we go into 40th into 46 right there at a little shopping mall, and we stop and we have a donut, chocolate donut, and we have a cup of coffee at our favorite spot. And he does want to buy more land. He wants to build up his mall more. He wants to make it bigger, which we need. And he has beautiful people working with him and he can't seem to get it bought, which is a shame I always seem to hear about when they say building, we're building maybe low income housing or things like that. And we have we have so much.
Speaker 1: Of that right.
Speaker 2: Now in our area. As we go on down the street, there's many houses that are over 100 years old.
Speaker 1: On Josephine Street itself, we get to 43rd.
Speaker 2: And this is where they want to cut me off at 43rd and just I don't know why, but they don't want me going further south. And we have sunshine liquor right there. I don't think he's here tonight. He was going to try to get here tonight, but he had to go to Utah.
Speaker 1: But he was very.
Speaker 2: Happy about it. They're going to cut this business completely off if he gets cut off. It used to be sunshine, a drugstore and a barbershop. And it's it's probably over 100 years old. And this fellow, Ron Nelson, has owned it, run it for over 50 years. So he's been.
Speaker 1: There for a long time.
Speaker 2: As we go on.
Speaker 1: Down through.
Speaker 2: Past 43rd, we cross over to railroad one railroad track and then the Fastpass track, and we see this beautiful, expansive property. I don't know who is bought it. It must be bought. I see no signs on it. It would make.
Speaker 1: We.
Speaker 2: Absolutely need a beautiful restaurant. We need a bunch of our artisan houses, we need a bunch of little boutiques. And they would all fit in perfectly as you go down 40th Avenue and end up with the glassblowing plates right there on 41st Avenue, well, you end at least 40% with you, Josephine. This Christmas, you can include your comments. Your time is up. I got to be down one more time. The time is up. Oh, it is up. Yeah. Okay, so used Josephine Street. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Jimmy Bacon.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: And then sad. And Gilbert.
Speaker 0: Hmm.
Speaker 13: I guess. Well, I guess first thing, if some day if you if you could pass an ordinance to get a burrito vendor up here on this floor, I think that would be great. Um, but let's see. Okay. But. All right. Well, my name is Jimmie Bacon, and I have lived. I live at 40, 46, 18 High Street. So if anybody ever wants to send me chocolates or be pen pals, you know, feel free. But I've looked in a lot of neighborhoods in Denver, and I will say that Olivia Swanson neighborhood is inundated with kids. Gloria Swanson is full of kids. And as much as I hate kids, there is a substantial air quality related. Issue with respiratory issue. And I believe any physiologists will tell you that the respiratory system is the gateway into the body and breathing in exhaust pollutes the blood and that pollutes the body and that affects health and normal development. So now I wasn't consulting my crystal ball before I came here, but I got to say that I think widening the interstate somewhere as near as wide as a football field is long is going to be a mistake.
Speaker 2: I mean, do you have comments related to the neighborhood plan?
Speaker 13: Yes, I do. Think sorry. I thought that this amount of time, too, like before I got here, would, like, slow my heart down and but. And get me more prepared. But it hasn't. Okay, so here we go. The points of the plan above with the disjointed community, the missing services, the environmental issues, the nuances in crime, the property neglect of parks and recreation. I believe all of those points can be addressed with a reroute and a a martin Luther King Style Boulevard along 46th Street. I believe that there can be no more stupid kids running around in the neighborhood and also different kind of things for economic benefits like home grown flower stands and cottage food style stuff stands around that boulevard. But what I guess I'm saying here is that we open to the possibility that I-70 expansion is truly a bad idea. Creating new taxes, fees, and hope that the private sector will handle this is fine if there were no other options. But I think in this case but in this case, there is another option, a cheaper one to reroute I-70. And I guess finally, to be extra corny here, Stevie Wonder is coming into town in a few days. And I have been thinking, what would Stevie Wonder say about this interstate not making you drive interstate and. Okay.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. The.
Speaker 0: Fat tax of 4535 Julian Street Members of council. The plan you're considering tonight reflects a good deal of effort by both the community and the planning department. Like most such plans, it reflects a sincere effort to improve the neighborhood. Unfortunately, it's doomed to failure first because there's insufficient funds assigned to implement it. And second, because of the plans that are currently being proposed by the Colorado Department of Transportation for East I-70, as has been recognized in a proclamation by this council. When I-70 was first ripped through Elyria and Swansea, it devastated these communities. Homes and businesses were removed. The northern part of the neighborhoods was isolated from the rest of the city, and parishes were destroyed. Long time residents left and were replaced by the people who currently reside there. Now an attempt is being made to convince these residents that the connectedness that is espoused is one of the goals of the neighborhood plan will be achieved by tripling the footprint of the highway and building 8 to 14 foot sound barrier walls along almost all the length of the trench. The healthy community that is another goal supposedly will be achieved by subjecting the neighborhoods to pollution from an additional 40,000 cars and trucks per day, increasing truck traffic through the neighborhood by removing interchanges and encouraging children to play on an unventilated cover over a polluting highway. Making these matters worse is that despite the fact that the constructing the highway is a state and not a city function, the city of Denver is considering contributing millions of dollars to the construction of this monument to the hubris of our traffic engineers. However, those dollars are exactly the type of financial resources that otherwise could be used to implement the many positive aspects of this plan. Indeed, the dollars that would be given to the state to once again devastate North Denver through the I-70 East Project could be used for meaningful, positive projects in all of Denver's council districts. Given these facts, I urge you to support the Elyria, Swansea and Neighborhood Plan. However, I urge you to do so only if you are prepared by me to move beyond the plan as an empty statement of unreliable goals intended to pacify the members of the community and to give Elyria resiliency of the resources required to implement the plan by refusing to transfer city funds to the I-70 East Project.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker is Gilbert Vasquez.
Speaker 8: Hello? Yeah, I'm not really opposed by 70 so much. I know the bridge is in a rough shape, but what they need to do is respect the business people over there and the boulevard. What they're doing with the school that tops what's going on with the people when what they're doing is with the top on one side with the kids. That's great. The other side too. I'm go to the little center but doesn't hurt to let people and businesses there talked about close ah Josephine and make that just a three way two three block area which people are used to driving always through it from downtown through what they're going to do they turn into Clayton make that the way to go through that two neighborhood street which will that become a more of a hazard for the kids are around the school that lives in that block up and down from 45 to 46. That's where everyone we be driving through where it should be seen the way it is now. If they want to send Josephine through the truck route, fine. But let Joseph Josephine be regular car. New York is fine because the criminals there got me through four. But let the other part be, as you know, look for the locals go in there because we are all these business people are in there doing thing set business, help the neighborhood get along every neighborhood. They can't forget about the neighborhood. They can't forget to hit the neighbors. They all like all the stuff they're. And that's why I believe they should do at least respect the neighbors. They don't have a lot of money. But listen to them.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Vasquez. Okay. Our next group is one Esteban Bello's. Abel Bustillo. Nancy Palacios. Ruby Venegas. And Victor and Victoria Venegas. The Senate. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 14: One unnoticed singer is going Scarlet's Singer President Jerry Monteiro.
Speaker 7: Evening, members of the board. And Madam President, during winter.
Speaker 14: We are celebrating in me this.
Speaker 7: So I am going to be brief tonight.
Speaker 14: But I know she has me number one bellows so resident Olivia Beaven couldn't they said this isn't they think of Williams Denver Colorado or Chantal this disease.
Speaker 7: Good evening my name is One Willows. I am a resident of Illyria and I live on 4765 William Street in Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 14: A year participle and and in committee so the committee report is similar to that Randall participated in in Proyecto Al Foxtrot Cavaleiro Puerto.
Speaker 7: I am in the Parent-Teacher Association at Bruce Randolph and have been also part of the Festac project.
Speaker 14: Is taking over. And that tells you that the the either national works that.
Speaker 7: I've been also involved in the process for the neighborhood plan and I'm also part of the working group that is dealing with the National Western Center.
Speaker 14: Item in our historical, our own local departamento. But as soon as we transport.
Speaker 2: I am also.
Speaker 7: Working with the Department of.
Speaker 1: Transportation.
Speaker 14: Eleanor Nico Cukier Police. It's killers. This is serious because it. Tom and then go on and go into the protection. Then those three recruits en masse, Bradley, also known as Ninos Compreso El Numero Uno.
Speaker 7: And the only request that I have for you is that the decisions that are made are done keeping in mind as a priority, the protection of our most valuable asset that our children.
Speaker 14: Gracious.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's just what we need. A girl who steals. In this case.
Speaker 14: I don't necessarily know what Assad was to use and it doesn't mean I strictly controls tennis.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Sears and thank you for the opportunity of talking to you today.
Speaker 14: Just really into the Swansea and beyond as in Kentucky Fillmore District.
Speaker 7: I am a resident of Swansea. I live on 5055015 Fillmore Street.
Speaker 14: And as hello as General Allen's meetings can arrive in Swansea at least once a year.
Speaker 7: I've been attending to the different meetings that have been part of the process of the neighborhood planning for Olivia Swansea.
Speaker 14: Uh, just like I said. Then we should get in a step process. So join ENDA Kenny free way to peace. Pistorius more importantly, yes, went up at L'économie and a de la Ciudad. Then we start. And then Mr. Stadler.
Speaker 7: I understand that the highway is very important to the city and has a high importance for the economy of the state.
Speaker 14: Pedro Solana, steady the gate. No retreating they luminous passively better clear cut monstrous nice tried communi that.
Speaker 7: But I would ask that you please try to decrease the negative impact for our community.
Speaker 14: Part II i muchas familias. I'm puzzled. I thought that's who either he. Said My future state senator, they has to suspend us.
Speaker 7: There are many families there that have been in that area forever, and it would be extremely hard for them to be displaced.
Speaker 14: Uh. SEC is important paper, but I thought was better. Now I'll be the investor company that put them on us. I trust the Agonist Algo Gazette better. But at the told us.
Speaker 7: I know that the top the highway topic is very important for everybody. But let's please don't forget our community and do something that is respectful for all the parties.
Speaker 14: Is to look at the nearby traffic.
Speaker 7: Thank you. That's all I had to say.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay. Our next speaker is Nancy Palacios.
Speaker 1: You have. Good evening, city council members. My name is Nancy Palacios. I am a student at East High School and resident of Swansea, a community. I am a part of a leadership program at Swansea Rec Center. We took a survey of our community and there were top four issues in Swansea neighborhood. Our main concerns were safety, health, violence and vandalism. Our leadership group will be presenting on these four concerns. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay. Our next two speakers are Ruby Venegas and Victoria Venegas.
Speaker 1: Good evening, city council members. My name is Ruby Venegas. I'm a student at STRIVE Prep Sunnyside, and I'm a member of the leadership program. I live in the Swanson community and our program did the survey. And one of the topics was safety. There is it's really hard because there's no lights in our streets and there's no there is no there's no separation between alleys and parks. And this is hard because kids can get lost in the motor. Exactly. One expense I expected was last summer. I was taking out the trash in our street. To have a light was pretty dark and I didn't see anything. And a lot of kids were afraid to go outside because there was the crime scene. They were afraid of getting kidnaped. All I'm asking is for when you do this project to think about how it's affecting kids and like the safety. And that's all.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Is Victoria here?
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Victoria. I live in the Swansea community. I am also with the leadership program as well. And. One of the other problems is health. First, there are no smoke free zones. People in kids can get second hand smoking because lots of people in the park smoke also. Also, there are people there. There also there is lots of littering. There is also a Sara house right behind the rec center. Many people don't like the smoke. They don't go to the the rec centers park because of the smell. This has caused people not to go to the rec center and get movie. Their health can get them impacted by these barriers because they aren't exercising. By making smoke free zones. Kids cannot catch secondhand smoking. And by providing only smoke for smoke zones. People know where to smoke and the other people won't get affected. We appreciate your time. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you for coming, especially since you have school tomorrow. So thank you very much. Okay. Our next speaker is. Fabolous Marotta. The. Repeat your name because I didn't say it right. What's that? Fabulous microphone. Good evening, city council members. My name is Fabio that I live in this one two year community and I'm also part of the leadership program. Another issue in our community is violence. There's a lot of violence, for example, a lot of gang affiliation. People have witness shooting. There is animal abuse at the Slater house. But don't forget about checks getting introduced to minors. In our whole experience I've had was when I was at school field and all of a sudden the ambulance as well as the police showed up in front of this one seriously. There was a person getting stabbed and the children there seen it made them feel really unwelcome. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian and I do not have a last name. Do we have one? He didn't write it. Okay. Hey, Brian, introduce yourself to us.
Speaker 6: My name is Brian Lobato and. I am also.
Speaker 2: Part of the leadership program.
Speaker 6: And the fourth issue was that there was too much vandalism. There's a lot of graffiti. The alleys.
Speaker 2: Have.
Speaker 1: A lot of graffiti.
Speaker 6: People's homes were being broken into, which goes back to the topic of safety, which was number one, trespassing was also an issue, but not as common. My personal experience with vandalism was that the elementary school got tagged. Also, someone broke the back windows of everybody's car and truck and caused a lot of damage. And it was dangerous because glass shards were in the.
Speaker 1: Truck and you could hurt yourself. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: O'BRIEN Thank. I appreciate you coming. Our next speaker is Jasmine Ramirez, followed by Carla Lopez. Amy and then, Madam Secretary, I didn't catch the name of the last person after AEI.
Speaker 7: Sorry, which one?
Speaker 2: So person Steve had mentioned or you looked at up. Hi.
Speaker 7: Hello. My name is Jasmine Ramirez. I am a student at Bruce Randolph and High School in the community of Swansea. What I will be talking about this evening is one of my personal experiences which contains by, I mean, yeah, violence. I have experienced a robbery not so long ago my house was robbed and I really don't feel safe living in a community like this. And I know actually I'm positive that everyone in my community believes that there should be a change.
Speaker 1: And so.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you very much, Carla Lopez. That evening. See Council.
Speaker 1: Oh, my name is Carter Lopez and I'm also member at the Leadership Program and the song's lyrics and I live in the Santa community. Something I have personally experienced is vandalism in our community. People are trespassing in other people's property. For example, in my house there is graffiti and gang signs all over my fence and garage door. And I many people have around the community have. Um, graffiti and gang signs all over their property and. Well, I hope you consider our request and make this project happen.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Miss Locus and Elizabeth and Ed Bill.
Speaker 12: And Elizabeth Globeville, thank you for the opportunity to talk. I'm part of the National Western Center Advisory Committee, have participated participated as sort of an adjunct neighbor. With this planning process, please hold in greater weight than mine the comments of those that live on property and have businesses in the neighborhood. I want to just say a few things quickly, and it's going to probably seemed disjointed, but I'm in a framework and a little bit as a response to the Grow House letter that you've received, because I feel like I'm in contention and would like to point out some contrast to thinking relative to this plan, which I generally support and I think is very exciting probably can that the the comment in there that the process of arriving at this draft was not always smoothly orchestrated, largely due to the cultural disconnect between the planning team and the majority of residents. This is a group that's worked with hundreds of residents, and I'm very concerned that non-profits aren't driving. So as residents into the planning process and building that trust even as they accomplish good things. So as we go forward with the implementation of this plan, please understand that it very much supports the engagement of the city council planners , etc., directly with the neighbors. And please understand that the marquee engagements with nonprofits isn't necessarily as participatory as it can be directly with with the neighbors. Because this plan is beautiful, partly because it leaves open engagement for more development of more details. I also want to say that the I disagree with saying that the affordable housing is nonspecific. I think that in section B 24, in the plan, page 46, there's a tremendous amount of detail about how to coordinate that with resources, infrastructure of the city to make it a priority. And followed by that is Section B 25, which I want to point out has to do with improved access to jobs and services because of the high level of lack of education, lack of college degrees and high school education. These neighborhoods, it's necessary to increase the skills, the employability and job connections. So if you're truly supporting people, having the stability to stay in their property and this is among the highest owner occupied neighborhoods in in Denver. So I disagree that the that that isn't something that this plan responds to. I think that going forward, it's incumbent upon us to strongly support the integration of the populations, to be able to afford the increased taxes on their houses and their properties going up in value by helping people increase their ability to earn money. And then finally, I just want to say that that I don't I want to go further than the development without displacement, development and economic visualization, revitalization with enhanced quality of life, supporting the stability of the neighborhood residents is a way to truly revitalize a neighborhood. And even if they hit the reset button and I 70 took it out of the neighborhood or did something entirely different, this plan will work. It is not doomed to failure. It's got fantastic abilities. We do have to develop the money and I think that we could reset some of the I-70 stuff and we do need to look at narrowing it and that is mentioned in the plan. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming out tonight and being patient with us. Mr. Ed Bell.
Speaker 8: Thank you and thank you, counsel, for letting us let me speak tonight again. My name is Ed Bell. I'm a resident of Rapport County, but I'm in the process of purchasing two and a half acres due west of the 40th and Colorado commuter rail station. It is my goal down the road to develop the property into a mix of light industrial, mixed income, housing and retail. Last year I had the opportunity to meet with Tim and Tim Watkins and Steve Nally of the Denver Planning Department to discuss the potential future development of the properties in the area. They took time out of their busy day to spend almost an hour with me going over the area of shared with me the work they were doing on the Galleria Swansea neighborhood plan. As a result, I became more involved in the public process that designed to include all the stakeholders in the neighborhood. I found the process that was employed to be very inclusive of genuine effort was made by the Denver Planning Department, including to include all the members of the neighborhood residents and property owners alike. I don't know exactly how many meetings were held, but I imagine that not many other neighborhood plans have seen such an outreach to the community. The Denver Planning Department should be applauded for creating such an inclusive and educational process. Valerie and Swansea neighborhoods should be also recognized for the amount of constructive input they provided. It's unusual for communities to get involved over something that's such a positive change. Does the plan make everyone happy? We've heard a lot of talk about I-70 tonight. Probably not. But the plan does not shut out those who have. Concern. In fact, they specifically call out those concerns and recommend more study. The biggest area that I'd like to talk about is the area around 40th and Colorado commuter rail station. Starting on page 108 of the neighborhood plan is the description of the recommendations, the area around the 40th and Colorado commuter rail station. These recommendations are and are transformative and apply upon a partnership between the public and private sector.
Speaker 3: One of the most important factors limiting private.
Speaker 8: Development and development of any kind in the area is the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Spur that bisects the surrounding neighborhood, creating pedestrian and automotive traffic disruption. It is my understanding that the city and county of Denver is leading efforts to acquire the tract referred to in the plan as the market lead. On page 115 of the plan. Two pages are.
Speaker 3: Dedicated.
Speaker 8: The importance of this parcel. Given the powers the railroad companies hold, the city and county of Denver needs to lead the way by purchasing the property from Burlington Northern Santa Fe and partnering with the private sector for the implementation of the recommendations detailed in the plan. The 40th and Colorado Rail Stations. Long term success requires the market lead be developed and the recommended connectivity be created. I'd like to take this time to thank the Planning Department, especially Tim Watkins and Steve Nally, for their efforts. The plan is very well thought out.
Speaker 2: Mr. Bell, your time is up.
Speaker 8: Thank you very.
Speaker 2: Much. Thank you. Okay. That concludes our speakers. And the first question I see from members of council is from Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, I was wondering if one of the planners could pull up a map and just talk to us about what we've been hearing about the Josephine Street? Because I'm not sure I caught it in the presentation, and it was clearly a theme. So if you could walk through what specifically the plan is proposing, how firm that is, and that would be helpful for me, please.
Speaker 11: All right. So this is the multi-modal connectivity map. I don't know if you can see my cursor, but that would be good if you could. Can you see my cursor on your screen?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 11: Thank you. So this is Josephine. It is a one way couplet. One way north and York is one way south. Right now, with I 70, you can get off of the interstate at York. If you're heading east, you can get on to the interstate at through Josephine and along Stevenson place. If you're heading west, the the proposed project eliminates access at York and Josephine. So the plan is recommending to weighing both Josephine and York because it no long there's no longer an access or off ramp off of I-70. York is two way to the north of 47th. York is two way to the south of 40th to have a 4 to 5 block one way, couple of without the off ramp. Didn't make a whole lot of sense. And so that's that's the recommendation in the plan. This map shows a pedestrian bridge at Josephine because that is what is proposed by the current set up project. The thinking was Josephine ends at just north of 47th and it was an opportunity to save cost in the project. The interim condition between a new highway without access at York and Josephine prior to the two wing of all of York. Because this at York and Josephine and the East Rail, a new intersection was just built to accommodate that northern movement, to head up Josephine. So there there would be an interim condition of one way couplet without an off ramp, in all likelihood. So a lot more study needs to take place. What does it mean to eliminate this access here, and what does it mean to have a one way couplet for four blocks? And what are the impacts to actually move traffic back over to York if there is a PED bridge at Josephine? So the plan is just reflecting kind of what Seerat is showing as far as the PED Bridge plan is recommending to Wayne York. And there are a number of reasons for that. It's to get the trucks off of Josephine, get the trucks over to York, which is the arterial street. As far as the actual connection at Josephine over I-70, that needs to be studied further. As part of that, as we gather more information of what it means for traffic patterns without an interchange there.
Speaker 1: And just Madam President, if I may just clarify. So for those residents who raised questions, there's two issues, which is, one, what is I-70 proposal due to York and Josephine? And then the second is, how does this plan propose reacting? I heard a lot of residents say that Josephine would be closed. I'm assuming that those of you made that comment were referring to the see that exit being closed? Not so much how the plan responds. Am I.
Speaker 11: Right.
Speaker 1: Or do you not?
Speaker 11: I think the closing is the PED Bridge that's proposed. I think a lot of residents want that to be a vehicular connection over I-70.
Speaker 1: I see.
Speaker 11: I think that is the concern.
Speaker 1: Okay. So say to me again, so I even though you just went through it, then I missed something. I thought I heard you say you're going to make Josephine two way, but is there a place at which Josephine is to a and then close to vehicles. Is that. I missed that again. I'm sorry.
Speaker 11: So then so the long night. But yes there are kind of two things going on here. One is a pet bridge over I-70 or vehicular bridge over I-70.
Speaker 1: It's an either or.
Speaker 11: That's that's not currently in the plan, but that's the first issue.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 11: The other thing is to wing of those streets. So if we can separate those for a bit, this map reflects the proposed I-70 project, which is a PED bridge at Josephine. But the plan also recommends studying traffic patterns along York Street and Josephine Street. And I can actually read the recommendation. You work in Josephine function today as a one way couplet, a condition which creates significant truck and traffic impacts along Josephine residences, predominantly front Josephine north of 43rd Avenue with mixed use industrial uses that predominately from 40th Avenue and 43rd Avenue. As part of a travel shut analysis, conduct additional travel pattern studies and conduct neighborhood outreach to explore the desire for and trade offs associated with canceled consolidation of York and Josephine into a streets. Also explore opportunities to keep trucks on York Street to minimize negative impacts of residents along Josephine Street. So that's. The key recommendation of the plan. The map is reflecting the proposed project for I-70. Should the proposed project for I-70 change and there is actually a vehicular connection, I think it would still meet the goals of the plan of greater North-South connectivity and a number of other recommendations in the plan.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you so much. So I just I'll say it back real quick. Make sure I heard it right the final time. So. So the plan does not decide the outcome of Josephine. The plan describes exploring. And so those who have concerns can rest assured that this plan doesn't assume the answer. It simply says this has to be studied. Is that. Yes.
Speaker 11: That's correct. It's a it's complicated and sorry for the complicated explanation.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, madam.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilor McKinney. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. Maybe let's go with Tim, because I've had some conversations with Tim around this issue a lot. So, Tim, just on record, I just want you to say what's in the plan for height limits on 40th, the two stations, 40th in Colorado and 38th. And Blake. And I'm just going to say and you tell me if I'm right. So for for both of those stations, we are at CMA six eight. The recommended the recommended height limits a C max eight with an ash tricts on the 30th and Blake Station that I can go up to 12 stories if approval from the coal neighborhood in Elyria, Swansea neighborhoods.
Speaker 11: That's very close. And I would first describe the 40th and Colorado station area as transitioning from two and a half to three, then stepping up to five with a maximum height of eight closest to the station. And I do have the map up on the screen showing the darkest orange color as eight storey maximum at that station location is very much a intentional effort to create that terracing from established residential up to the taller building heights. Same with the National Western Center stationary as you can see those terracing heights but specific to 38th and Blake Station area as well as along Brighton Boulevard up to south of I-70 and also west of the Union Pacific Rail Yards. The eight stories with an asterix links. Well, it calls out this this language that says up to 12 stories could be explored in strategic locations through discussion and collaboration with community, with the community and applicable neighborhood organizations. Okay. So additional conversation to take place.
Speaker 9: You know, and I agree with that in you know, the struggle here is well, first of all, it's it's not near applicable neighborhoods, especially at 30th and Blake especially 40th and Colorado 30th. And Blake is is near the Cole neighborhood and in Reno kind of. Yeah, it's it's it's it's tucked in that way. So I just I want to make sure that the whole neighborhood is specifically called out in in that in the 30th and Blake Station and it is not. It kind of is because you have the applicable neighborhoods, but it's not specifically called out.
Speaker 11: But if I may. Whenever we receive a rezoning application, we notify all registered neighborhood organizations within 200 feet of a subject rezoning. So if it is if it is technically that portion that is to the east of the tracks that falls within this planning area code would be notified. And that language is intended to be I'm.
Speaker 9: Sure of it. But you see, the issue that we that we have here is that even though neighborhoods may be notified, kind of, you know, the whole neighborhood wasn't a part of. There are some members that came out and Tim did a actually a great job trying to reach out to the whole neighborhood. But folks get lost in the shuffle and at the end of the day, you don't hear about it. We do. And so I just wanted to I just want to say that publicly, that call will be notified. You listed every neighborhood organization's going to be notified of of this issue. The reason I say this is because right now, all the land right there on 30th and Blake, most of it is empty and there are planned developed site plan developments already talking about this. And so neighbors need to be ready for, you know, whatever, whatever comes. But we need to be very, very clear in the neighborhood plan about those issues. And as for the for 40th and Colorado, the two applicable neighborhoods would be Swansea and Clayton. Is that correct? Northeast Park Hill, Clayton and Swansea. Okay. Northeast Park. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 11: I might just add to that.
Speaker 8: Briefly that the River.
Speaker 11: North registered neighborhood organization Boundaries.
Speaker 8: I believe, go up to.
Speaker 11: South of I-70 or at least along Brighton Boulevard and overlap into the statistical.
Speaker 4: Area of Elyria and Swansea.
Speaker 11: So there are registered neighborhood boundaries that overlap with artistically neighborhood boundaries and it does become very much about proximity.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. My first question was for Brad Buchanan, but I saw that he left. So let me ask either Steve or Tim. Tell us what the benefit is of any neighborhood having a neighborhood plan.
Speaker 11: But you know, the shorter the long answer. Well, this this plan is the guide for the future of the neighborhood. It is for the neighborhood to hold up and say, this is what we want in our neighborhood. It is for city planners to hold up in front of our city council and decision makers and say, this is what the neighborhood wants for the future of their neighborhood. It's it's a vision. It's a it's kind of a playbook of how the future should play out and for the neighborhood. Tim, help me out here.
Speaker 2: So let me just say, historically, neighborhoods that have neighborhood plans get to use those as a priority for insisting that issues in those communities get funded that historically have have sort of been overlooked in the neighborhood plan elevates those improvements or those issues that the neighborhoods identify. Can you just clarify if that's still accurate?
Speaker 6: Sure.
Speaker 11: But it's the neighborhood plan identifies the projects to fund.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 11: If a neighborhood doesn't have a plan and a list of projects to fund, then those projects won't be funded.
Speaker 2: Okay. So along those lines, because there are major projects that are going on in this area, I-70 and the National Western Project, if some of these improvements are not part of those two big projects. I'm not sure I see the light at the end of the tunnel that there will be funding available for some of the priorities that the neighborhoods want in these communities because so much city and other dollars will be. Basically targeted for those large projects. And so can you tell me whether or not anything that's been identified in the plan is already funded? I know that our 2015 budget included, I believe it was $46 million for this area of the city. Are any of the projects in this plan being funded by those dollars?
Speaker 11: Yeah. So rebuilding Brighton Boulevard is one of them. The majority of the I believe that 46 million for this area went to Brighton Boulevard and that is within this planning area and is recommended by the plan.
Speaker 2: Okay. But but other benefits are improvements to the residential neighborhood. And I'm not discounting the importance of what needs to happen on Brighton Boulevard because there is so much development activity happening there today. Right. So whether it's 50 seconds or addressing the railroad crossing at York and 47th or some of these other priorities that have been identified in the plan, can you.
Speaker 0: Speak?
Speaker 11: I don't have a list of all of the funded projects, but there is a sidewalk project funded for 48. Money has been identified for a sidewalk along a 40th Avenue. Both of those are identified as priority projects in the plan. So money has been identified in the 2015 budget for studying East-West connectivity, specifically at 47th and York. So it's not a capital or a physical improvement, but it's studying what that improvement could be in further detail. There's also we're also working very hard.
Speaker 2: Where does that go from? East. West. You said it's an east west connectivity from York to.
Speaker 11: So it's.
Speaker 2: Basquiat's.
Speaker 11: So it's east west connectivity basically along the upper tracks. So it's between 970 up to 49th. Pull up a map. That these are the the general is the general study area for that east west connectivity study. So it's not clearly defined as the east sorry, the north south streets on either side. It's more about traveling east and west between I-70 up to 49th Street as it relates to the up tracks.
Speaker 2: And is that because part of the connectivity for the neighborhood ends up being compromised as a result of the I-70 project coming in? Because as I looked at the map, it's very evident that the current, both east, west and north south connectivity, particularly for Elyria, almost disappears. In Swansea, it looks like some of that connectivity happens north and south because of the the lid that is put over I-70. And then it looks like there are some additional bridges over I-70. I'm not sure that they're all connected to the to the lid or not. So can you address that?
Speaker 11: Yeah. So the the highway is is proposed to widen, as you've heard tonight. But for Elyria, there is little change in the Street Network. This study is intended to improve that street network for Elyria and Swansea. It's intended to improve connecting to each other. That is a condition of the 47th in York intersection, not a condition of existing I-70 or proposed I-70.
Speaker 2: Okay. But it is a fact that the connectivity that they currently have that's under I-70, which is 46th Avenue, disappears as a result of the widening of I-70.
Speaker 11: It's just to the north of I 70. So 46 is still there. It's just instead of instead of being underneath I-70, it's next to I-70. So it's I think it's a wash as comparing what's there today versus what would what is proposed to be there in the future. Unless I'm not understanding your question.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I guess part of it is that it's the the connectivity that exists today in the way that people can get from Globeville to Elyria to Swansea, which, you know, is a pretty direct and easy flow, except where you got to kind of jog around from Washington Street. So part of that really gets kind of chopped up as a result of the I-70 project being widened. And by putting 46th Avenue beside I-70, it further widens the footprint of the overall project.
Speaker 11: That's correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. Can you tell me when the decision was made that the playground on the lid is actually a. You mentioned that it's it's the it will be the school playground. And it's my recollection from a number of the meetings that either I or my staff attended that the neighborhood would have input into what would go on to that lid. And I know that Saeeda and Denver Public Schools will be having a meeting. I don't have the date where they will be talking about that now being the school playground. And so I'm a little concerned that the residents of the neighborhood have not necessarily had a lot of input into that. So what can you tell me about that?
Speaker 11: Well, so actually, last Friday, DPS and parents from Swansea Elementary School met with members of the community and residents of the neighborhood. The city was there and she was there to kick off a process to figure out what this covers should be in the future. The neighborhood plan kind of sets out some goals of what should be there, but also recommends that the community see the DPS parents of students as well as elementary school, the city and other potential partners to collaborate on the design and long term management of this cover, considering a few things so that a decision hasn't been made . Discussion is taking place currently is how this can be a community asset, not just an asset for the residents, also an asset for the students and a combined facility and a collaborative effort.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm glad to hear they've taken a step back because I had learned from both see that in DPS they were moving forward until they realized that residents had not really had an opportunity to weigh in on that. So I'm pleased to hear that they are ensuring that there is a more inclusive process here. The last question I have is when you showed the picture of the open channel and yet it then had a picture of housing over that has has there been the drainage ditch or the where it would be? Where the drainage ditch, I believe, is proposed to go toward the railroad tracks are okay. Okay. So it's my understanding that's where the open channel was going to be for the drainage. Correct. But then I saw some housing over that so well.
Speaker 11: So it's it's a little complicated is a lot of water flowing to the north, but not so much in this particular area. So the combined drainage concept is a combination of pipes, green streets and open channels. For this particular portion. That ditch isn't actually the open channel. There is a proposal to do to actually convey water through Monroe Street. And then as the market lead turns basically into 39th and there's an opportunity to open that up as an open channel. So this graphic that you're seeing with potential development and a pocket park on top of that bridge is is that is consistent with and the Green Street is consistent with the concept that's being proposed.
Speaker 2: Okay. That was something new to me. So that's why I had to ask about that, because I wasn't. It wasn't clear what was happening with that drainage. Okay. Just want to follow up. Go ahead.
Speaker 11: If I could just quickly respond to your first question regarding purpose of a plan and the influence that a plan can have on funding, helping make the case to fund a project. River North Plan was adopted several years ago. It made the case for improving Brighton Boulevard, which then has led to its current redesign and reconstruction.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Can I ask Drew, can I ask you to come up just a second? Okay. Thank you so much for hanging in there.
Speaker 6: No problem.
Speaker 2: So along the lines of Councilwoman Ortega's question as a member of the neighborhood and all of the involvement that you've had, this is it related to the digits, related to what is your opinion on the merits of having a neighborhood plan in your in your area?
Speaker 6: Well, I think without a plan, there's not really any vision. And there's it's also nothing. There's no direction that the city would have to fund projects or to improve improve the neighborhoods. And I think the lack of a plan.
Speaker 8: In these neighborhoods has.
Speaker 6: Been very detrimental and, you know, caused, you know, some neglect, sometimes outright harm. So the plan, I think, is a positive step forward.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And are there can you share with us the things that you imagine going forward? Should this plan be adopted tonight?
Speaker 0: Well, I think that as.
Speaker 6: If it's really integrated into.
Speaker 0: The other huge projects, you know, that the National.
Speaker 8: Western and Brighton.
Speaker 6: Boulevard, that it could be very, very positive that there's some.
Speaker 0: That those might catalyze a.
Speaker 6: Regeneration of malaria in Swansea. I think that regarding I-70 we have to be really very careful and it's still very undetermined what's going on there. The drafts, the supplemental.
Speaker 0: Draft, this was just it left so many questions.
Speaker 6: Unanswered.
Speaker 0: That I'm really worried.
Speaker 6: How how we how that goes forward. I really in some ways, I wonder with the I-70 project, what will be left of our neighborhood. I mean, we can't get any answers about the construction of this. How are they going to do that? You know, are we displaced? We have to leave our homes. For how long? You know, so that's the big unknown.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Are there other comments from members of council? QUESTION Let's see, where am I? All right. Seeing none. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 9: Madam President, I was deferring to you as a sitting council on this.
Speaker 2: I I'll go last. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 9: So we have talked so long, we didn't scared the kids out of here who deserve the most credit for being in here from 530 until 930. And so and I don't know if they'll never watch Channel eight, but unfortunately, I just want to say I am I was moved beyond words to see six, six kids speak into our plan in a in a very passionate and incredible way. So I want to thank those kids for being here. Leaders, really. You know, I'll just say this without a plan, people perish. And and so I'm I'm quoting a little a little scripture there. But I think all the folks who say that this plan will not do anything. Literally have not seen what plans have done in this city. Plans. Things get funded if they're measured and plan for it. It's very clear. And so I'm not worried about that, that that's not what I'm worried about at all. Matter of fact, every I think every little issue in this plan is going to get funded and this city is going to be I think I think Drew said, regenerate it. But the other word that I would say is gentrify that. That's what my fear is, is gentrification in this piece. 80205 The neighboring zip code you guys have heard me say it a million times is number one, gentrified zip code in the city, state and 12th in the United States. And now it's coming to a la Swansea, a Anglophile. And so what are what is community sustainability look like? And that's that's what I'm concerned about in these neighborhoods. And so Councilwoman Monteiro has been working hard to make sure that there are some affordable housing options to. Make sure that the community has places in the community where they can stay. Be a part of the community. And making sure that those investments in I-70 in the stock show realize that they need to understand that community sustainability is the number one goal. And I think people have been hearing that loud and clear. And I've been in meetings where it's been awkward because Councilwoman Monteiro has called people out to make sure that they understand that that's a priority. And so that's the kind of leadership that you need. And, you know, I just Councilwoman Teri has been doing a great job and and it's been a great example for me. So I think going forward, seeing the Urban Land Conservancy in some of their plans on affordable housing and the things that they want to do in in this area is going to be really important supporting local businesses, but supporting the nonprofits that are already doing great work. And Glover earlier. Swanson And making sure that they have long term leases, making sure that they have a vision for the neighborhood, making sure that they are funded. It's going to be really important so that community support is incredibly important. Any time I know there's a lot of concern over the highway and any time you invest $1,000,000,000 into a neighborhood in an area, it changes things radically. So I think it's it's right for Drew and others to to be concerned. And by the way, I live in Cole, so I live six blocks away from this neighborhood. And so my kids, my neighbors are concerned as well. And so but I think I think what you see up here and you all aren't a part of the meetings, but is a deep concern about pollution, about, you know, drainage issues, about connectivity within the neighborhood. Many council folks who have been in these I-70 meetings are working hard to make sure that that gets done. And so I just want to thank everybody for being here late, and I want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for leading the charge on this. And getting this done is the first time in this city's history that this gets done. And by the way, that's a big deal because Cole Clayton, North City Park, do not have city plans at all. This is a big deal. Realize it.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. First, I want to thank all the residents and business folks who came out tonight and for your patience in waiting through the previous zoning that we had. I want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for her leadership in working to bring forward a neighborhood plan. It really takes a push from your councilperson to get the city staff to say thank you to Steve and Tim to work with the neighborhoods, to put these plans together and make sure that the priorities, as they are identified by the neighborhood, are incorporated into these plans. I think it's important to say that the I-70 project does have direct. Impact on these neighborhoods. And, you know, I've sat through many, many meetings, as well as my staff, along with Councilwoman Monteiro and her staff. And one of my frustrations is that we have had ongoing weekly meetings with the city, and we're beginning to sit in on some meetings between the city and CDOT. And in the last meeting that I sat in on, we were told the issue of reducing the footprint other than just addressing the width of the lanes where the shoulders, for example, could could meet a different standard that we're we're really not going to be talking about reducing the footprint of this corridor through these neighborhoods. And that's very disturbing to me, because the impact to these neighborhoods is going to be significant, more so than any other neighborhood in this city that I'm aware of. You know, if you look at the map and literally count all of the lanes, including 46th and and 47th, 46th, and the on and off ramps. It's it's it's a huge impact to these neighborhoods. And so, you know, this plan, I think, plays a huge role in trying to address many of those issues and those impacts. But just having participated in that process, I have to say it's it's frustrating. There is a meeting that is being held tomorrow evening at 530 at Bruce Randolph Middle School. There have been a series of smaller meetings that were taking place in the neighborhood where the city of Denver was talking to groups in the neighborhood of the parents who meet with the principal, some of the nonprofits, other folks in the community to hear concerns and try to incorporate those into the recommendations that are moving forward or the negotiations that are moving forward with CDOT. So this meeting tomorrow will be to, you know, share back with the community that we've heard. You hear the things that Denver is working to address and incorporate as part of the concerns that we'll be fighting for as part of the second I-70 project. So that will be again 530 tomorrow evening at Bruce Randolph Middle School. For those of you in the neighborhood who can attend and pass on and share the information with your neighbors. Lastly, I think just the whole issue of the playground, I'm really pleased to hear that they've taken a step back to include the neighborhood folks in deciding what that lead should look like. And, you know, obviously, because that is calling that mitigation, they're going to have to not only fund the improvements, but fund the ongoing maintenance of the improvements that go in there. So I know there's a lot of intertwining, but again, I think I-70 is the £100 gorilla in this conversation. And it was important to have the neighborhood plans move ahead of some of these bigger projects to ensure that the issues that the neighbors have identified, connectivity, open space, just all of the issues that are in the plan. The air quality issue is huge because of the health impacts that people in these neighborhoods have been impacted by for the many years that I-70 has been through the middle of these neighborhoods. But again, I just want to commend everybody who's been involved in shaping the priorities in this plan and look forward to seeing more funding to address the implementation of it. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I am very happy to see this neighborhood plan in front of us finally and ready for a vote. I know that. Councilman Monteiro, thank you for your work and thank you to the community and the folks that are here. I, too, wish that the the young ones were here, but there's nothing better than no better way to implement a neighborhood plan and to get an education in the community. And I think, you know, at the end of the day, that's what the neighborhood plans are designed to do. They're much more about much less about zoning and about how high you can build and where you can build it. It's about neighborhoods and neighborhoods depend on. People depend on neighborhoods to thrive in order for them to thrive. And if at the end of the day, in Elyria and Swansea and other neighborhoods, they still have not had another neighborhood plan or have an updated neighborhood plan in a day. I think you you want to improve the neighborhoods in such a way that you put capital into the hands of those people that are there. And you do that by improving everything that the city can touch and has authority to improve sidewalks, streets, parks, amenities, crossing zones, safety, lighting, a neighborhood plan addresses all of these things. And I know that there's a lot more people who probably could be here were it not for a monday night and snowy and probably for their work schedules. And I know these neighborhoods very well. I worked as a community organizer, the, you know, train with the cross-community coalition and some good people in that community. And I came out of there learning how to organize. And these were the neighborhoods that that I that I first organized in. I met so many of the people like great people, great neighborhoods. Lorraine Granado used to take me to teach me how to do house visits. Right. And there's a lot of leaders that have contributed to this that have, you know, built it up. It's good to see one councilman that has office to take it to the next level with the neighborhood. My mother was a elementary school teacher at Swansea Elementary for a number of years in DPS, and she was still a teacher . So I know the neighborhood very well. I'm glad to see the plan. Very proud to see the folks here tonight. And today is a victory for the neighborhood and for the district. So 1017, you will be victorious. Thank you. I'm glad to vote to support it.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilman Nevitt.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. This is, I think, an absolutely stellar neighborhood plan. But as Mike Tyson famously said, everybody's got a plan until they get.
Speaker 3: Punched in the face.
Speaker 8: This is a community that is no stranger to getting punched in the face and they've been punched in the face over the last 50 years. But it's a community that's resilient and tenacious and given half a chance, will be able to implement this plan. And so I want to congratulate the community for being that resilient, tenacious community that wants to have a chance. I want to thank the planning for putting so much time and energy into working with the community and coming up with this plan. And finally, I just want to congratulate I've said this before several times in committee, but I just want to congratulate and express my appreciation to Councilwoman Monteiro. You have fought like a tiger for this community, and you have been tenacious and relentless and haven't let anybody forget this place and its importance and that it needs to be given that half a chance. And so this is a proud day for you as well. So let's get this sucker passed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Nevitt, other comments from members of council. I want to I just wanted to go last so I could get my thoughts together. And what I want to do is thank planning, community planning and development and city of Denver and all the other agencies that have worked along the way with us, the NTC , the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. I want to thank my council aide, Nola McGill, who is so loyal and so dedicated to this neighborhood that she deserves an applause. I also want to thank the Swansea Recreation Center Leadership Group who were just amazing. I was sitting there trying to visualize my daughter being up there talking and you know, it's quite a feat. And I want to tell the community members that this process has been helpful. It's been concerning and it's been inspiring. I've learned so much from working with everyone, and I, I hope that everyone has learned a lot listening to each other. We when we first started on this first step, I remember Nolan and I sitting in a conversation at our office saying, this can't be this can't be like any other plan that's ever been done. This is this is all areas once a year. And what is at the heart of it and the heart at the heart of what happened here is that. Decades of the neighborhood being traumatized by poor policy choices. There was a big, big element of distrust, though, from the beginning. We tried to work with that and figure out what we could do. And we started by doing an asset, a resource planning session with all of the people that with within the city, different agencies that made decisions about where money goes, you know, what's being done in the neighborhood. And we asked them, you know, what have you done for with what we we're doing? We were including Globeville. What have you done for Globeville? Various wants it. And what do you plan to do in the future? And that's when we were done with that exercise, with the blessing of the mayor. That seemed to be a pebble that was thrown in the water. And it started and it started rippling. We were able to bring, you know, the snap truck that was right in front of Swansea Element at Swansea Recreation Center. We're able to do bike lanes and finish lots of other little projects, were able to look at street signs and look at truck routes and get funding to do a health impact assessment. There is still lots of work to do and at the heart, as was mentioned, is, you know, some of these other catalytic projects that have divided the neighborhood in the past that probably did not have the best relationship with neighborhood people. And my hope is that and I know that people of Globeville, Elyria, Swansea will advocate for themselves with this plan that you have with you. And I take heart that I know that you will do that and that you have representatives here at City Council. Now that we have a plan that you can show to them and say, you know, this is our vision and help us find funding to continue to have these things go forward. The other thing that was different in this particular group was in this particular beginning process is we actually sat with community planning and developed community planning and development and said there the plan in these neighborhoods they need to have cultural relevancy. The heart of what these communities are, the way that they're threaded together, has everything to do with who they are culturally. And I'm very proud that after lots and lots of meetings that we conducted meetings in Spanish, we conducted everything that we could possibly think of to embrace the culture and the people that live in this neighborhood . And for that, I am very, very proud. And I hope that you are, too. We can't make any of these changes overnight, but I hope now that with this tool and that's what it is, it's a tool, and it's only going to be as good as the neighborhood people that use it. The representatives that will in the future be elected to represent Elyria, Swansea. It's only going to be that good. But even in our health impact assessment, we identified everything we could truck routes and where they should go, where there shouldn't be truck routes, signs, sidewalks, cracks in the sidewalks, railroad noise, other kinds of pollution. And so it's all there. I can't think of anything else that we could have done. I can't during this particular period of time. And so now is your plan and the future plan for your representatives. And so now you just got to work hard and go get it. And just so that you'll know part of what we've done along the way to, as I mentioned, the health impact assessment. So that's there as you're looking for funding, you can relate it to a specific thing in the health impact assessment, for example, a regional recreation center in the future for this area. We also have created an affordable housing committee that's already looking at land banking and looking at it was mentioned looking at purchasing 4800 race to do future housing, but that's just one project. There needs to be more. We also have another group that is looking at creating pathways for people that live in these neighborhoods, creating pathways from all the way, getting coaching to get your GED to be able to continue on and look at mentorships or stewardship or apprenticeships with future jobs that come in the future. So it's all there. It's going to be a lot of work, but I can't think of any stone that we didn't turn over and look at. And so it's there. And so I wholeheartedly support this project and and it's yours. And I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, we need. Oh, let's see. Where are we? I lost my place. Okay. Madam Secretary, roll call in 57.
Speaker 7: We need a motion to pass as amended.
Speaker 2: Okay. Councilman Brooks, we need a motion to pass as amended.
Speaker 9: So moved. No second can I say so moved. Madam Secretary, do I need to?
Speaker 7: Probably. For the record, you should probably state it.
Speaker 9: Okay. I move counts 12 5657 be order published now.
Speaker 2: As amended.
Speaker 9: As amended? Yes, that's right. As amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 57.
Speaker 7: Brooks Brown. Can each i Liman i Lopez I Nevitt.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 7: Ortega, I Rob Shepherd i Susman. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 8: Councilwoman Lehman Oh, Councilwoman.
Speaker 2: Woman Oh, sorry. Okay. Hmm. You know, two votes, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 7: Nine. Nice.
Speaker 2: We have nine. A nine eyes council bill 57 has passed as amended.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: See no other business before this? This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 1: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your Source.
Speaker 0: Denver. Eight on TV and online. To stay connected to your community. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 1: You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.
|
Bill
|
Adopts the Elyria and Swansea Neighborhoods Plan as a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Adopts the Elyria and Swansea Neighborhoods Plan as a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-4-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02172015_15-0064
|
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation 15 006 for honoring Shirley Amore for her service to the Denver Public Library. Whereas Denver City Council wishes to recognize our colleague Shirley Amour, who has provided exceptional guidance and vision as city librarian for more than eight years and is now retiring. And. Whereas, Shirley accomplished a great deal during her tenure, including delivering a successful campaign in 2007 when voters said yes to $52 million for library capital improvements as part of a better Denver bond program. And. WHEREAS, with Shirley's successful advocacy, voters approved ballot measures to age in 2012, ensuring additional funds for every branch to be open a minimum of six days per week. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Public Library enjoy many highlights under Shirley's leadership, including opening the Green Valley Ranch Branch Library, the Sam Gary Branch Library, and the Rodolfo Corky Gonzalez Branch Library. And. Whereas, with unwavering commitment to bringing excellent library services to the community, Shirley Amari has earned respect and affection of the Denver Citizens Library staff and city officials. Whereas Shirley has been a high, tireless advocate for the purpose of libraries in our communities. She has thought outside the box to provide all residents, including homeless people, opportunities to utilize library services for personal growth and connection to the technology services. And. Whereas, it has been the privilege of City Council to work side by side with Schuller, Shirley and more. And we thank her for her dedication, talents and heart, which she has served this great city. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council, since their birthday, wishes to Shirley as she celebrates her special day on Monday, February 16th, and to honor both her birthday indeed, and the occasion of her retirement. The council declares Tuesday, February 17th, as Shirley Amore Day Section two, that the Denver City Council hereby honors Shirley Amoore for her distinguished service to the Denver Public Library and the citizens of Denver and wishes her well upon her retirement. Section three 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 a copy be transmitted to Shirley more.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Lehman, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Madam President, I move that we adopt proclamation 15 Dash 006 for second.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Lehman.
Speaker 7: Thank you. It has been an honor to read this resolution. Surely you have been in the city library and since the summer of 2006 you are our first female city librarian and the ninth to hold this office. You have guided the library through fast moving changes in technology. You directed the building and the staffing of three new library branches, which provided library services to underserved areas of Denver. And you created an important community resources throughout the city. Leadership is everything. Surely. Thank you for being an outstanding leader for.
Speaker 2: We're not finished yet. Councilwoman Ortega, we're just getting.
Speaker 1: Started. Right.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. First of all, I'd like to ask that my name be added to the proclamation. I can remember coming back to council and having discussions about the hours being reduced in all of our libraries. There was discussion about whether or not we should be whether or not the library system should be sort of a separate entity apart from the city similar to an authority. And we were just struggling with how to deliver the same quality of services to the citizens and the taxpayers. With with the challenge, the financial challenges that we had. And over time, as you can see, we've actually added three libraries to our system, ensuring that people in all of our neighborhoods have access to all of the great materials that you and your staff routinely update and ensure that people have access to, including movies. I have a good friend who goes to the library just to check out movies all the time. So I want to I want to say thank you for your eight years of service to the city of Denver and for your work and dedication. I know you have an excellent team of people at the Denver Library system. We've we're going to be opening the last of the three of the end of this month on the 28th. And I know lots of people are looking forward to that one as well. But it's your leadership that helped guide us through this process. And I just want to say thank you for all of your work and your dedication to the city and the citizens of Denver. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. Cheri. This is a hard day for me and seeing you seeing you go in. And one of the reasons is, is I just feel like you get it. As a librarian, you understand it's not just about books. It's about the community. And I remember we when we first met you talking about you see the libraries as community centers. And I was like, oh, my goodness, this librarian gets it. Because it's not just a place where people go to read books, but it's a workforce center. It's not just a people. A place where people go to read books. It's where young folks who don't, who come from single family homes, aren't exposed to some of the programs to read. So they're there. It's a place where we have homeless services, especially around Blair Caldwell, which is in five points. And so I, I just appreciate your work and I appreciate your your boldness in even putting social workers at the at the libraries. And so I pray that this vision will continue to go on to the next person, because we have a lot of work to do in our urban libraries. And so thank you so much for your service. Thank you so much for understanding the city and seeing the city. And best of luck in retirement. And you can come back anytime. Just let you know.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Surely I said this during mayor council, but I have worked with you most closely in your project manager role, and there have been no shortage of unplanned twists and turns involved in getting the the Rodolfo Corky Gonzalez library ready to open its doors. And, you know, you and I and several others have had, you know, our share of angst and nail biting, wondering, you know, when and if and how it was finally going to come together. But I am so pleased to be able to announce to everybody this evening, as Councilman Ortega alluded to a moment ago, that we will be celebrating the grand opening of this new state of the art library to serve both well, all of Denver, but specifically the West and North Denver communities. And I couldn't be more excited. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, your actually your last day of work is the day before the opening. So I just want to let folks know that we will have a grand celebration on Saturday, February 28th, at the new Corky Gonzales Library, which is at West Colfax in Irving. If you did not know, the doors will open at nine and in 11:00 we will have a program and general merriment and celebration. So I couldn't be more excited. And thank you for your steadfast persistence and dedication to seeing that project through. I very much appreciate it, as do everyone who will avail themselves of that opportunity once the doors open. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Shepard. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: You don't often think of librarians as superpowers. But then I met Shirley Mra, who was of is a force to be dealt with. You were a hurricane of action and persuasion on the bond issue. And I was so impressed and so happy that we had you as our librarian. The librarian with superpowers. I don't think you'll probably be retired for too long. And certainly, as Councilman Brooke says, you can come back anytime. Thanks for your service. It was it was just wonderful. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Madam President, I wanted to just thank you, surely publicly for your work in making sure that libraries are still a thing of the present, not a thing of the past. You wouldn't believe how many times we heard people say, Why do we even have libraries anymore? When you have the Internet and I'll tell you why. Because they are. They're centers of knowledge, centers of opportunity. Our libraries nowadays are not just books that are getting dusty on a shelf. What happened to being able to do good research and teaching our young people not to just rely on what they see on Wikipedia or on Facebook as fact, but to go look for it themselves. And that's what that teaches, that that's what it's all about. I'm a generation Xer. I don't know about anybody after me. No offense, Elvis.
Speaker 8: But in the same generation.
Speaker 6: Hey, you claim to be young. I'm just picking on you. Even now that you're young, you know, three months younger than me. So it's such an invaluable it's such a valuable lesson, right, to to look for that information. It is the center of knowledge. Folks going to the library to seek refuge, to find work, to find peace. In some cases, there are only community centers and communities where we don't have any. A library is a community center and it's a place for community that and I'm proud. That at the end of this month, we will finally open the doors to the Rodolfo Corky Gonzalez library at the Avondale on Irving and Colfax. And you can clap for that.
Speaker 3: You can clap for that.
Speaker 6: And it's in a neighborhood that needed it the most. And when I worked with you, sure, you work together, even though it was contentious at times, even though we had a fight for every inch, we had to say we have to look surely mark my words surely said that we have to make sure this isn't the area for where the greatest need. And we're looking at putting this library somewhere in the west side. She says it needs to be in the area with the greatest need, and we all concurred with that. And this library is going to be a game changer, and it embodies the spirit of its namesake who fight in the streets so that we have access to the same seats that you all are sitting in. And so they can sit in the front seat of their classroom and not the back seat. Right. And so that's exactly what that library entails. You, ma'am, were critical to that. And I wanted to thank you on behalf of the folks in the West Side that I represent. Thank you so much for your work, Shirley.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Nevitt.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. Shirley, I'm really sorry to see you go.
Speaker 8: That's for sure. I'm trying to avoid the word, Shirley, but.
Speaker 9: You've been great to work with in. You know, a number of my colleagues have already talked about sort of, you know.
Speaker 6: The hurricane of.
Speaker 9: Activity and, you know, the tremendous things achieved. But I kind of like to think of you as sort of the librarian's librarian, the uber librarian, quiet, ridiculously organized, highly knowledgeable. You actually know the answer to the question before I've asked it. But you're very generous in letting me go ahead and ask the question and, you know, pretending that it's an interesting question and that that's something that you'll consider. But and the couple of things we've gotten to do together, working with Councilwoman Robb to get the funding for the bookmobile. Again, not a whole lot of drama and not a whole lot of fuss, just quietly working away, getting that done. And then the my Denver card, I remember coming to you all sort of, you know, hair on fire about how we could do this.
Speaker 6: And you explained that you'd actually been.
Speaker 9: Thinking about this for some time. And that was an excellent idea, Councilman, and we'd certainly get on it. But I think that was.
Speaker 6: Your idea before it was.
Speaker 9: Any of the rest of ours. And thank you for then quietly setting about making it happen. So librarians.
Speaker 6: Librarian, thank you for being.
Speaker 9: That. And you have big shoes to fill.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Nevitt. Next up is Councilman Fights. Thank you, Madam President. It has been a true pleasure, Shirley. Really enjoyed having you. You came at a time that followed some really tough budget cuts, and that's not a good environment to enter in to be the heroine.
Speaker 1: But you turned out.
Speaker 2: To be able to add libraries, add library hours, add library services. And you also worked with.
Speaker 1: Council.
Speaker 2: Officers very graciously to make those work for each of the areas.
Speaker 7: So I sincerely thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Fox. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Pro Tem. It seems like just yesterday that I met you at a reception for three candidates for city librarian. And boy, did we or I should say, the library commission choose. Right, as you've heard in all these comments. If I were to echo because really everything's been said. Any of the comments tonight? I think it would be Councilman Brooks. And I do want you to know, Councilman Brooks, there are books in the library older than you. But I really do see through the example of the main library here in Civic Center, the Central Denver Library, how much you have crafted a place that serves all people, regardless of the challenges. I remember going over and seeing the new computer technology center and it was just so exciting and I remember your excitement about it. I also remember your excitement at numerous book Lover Balls, all the dressing up and, you know, eating in the library that I don't think a librarian is actually trained for. But you were you were wonderful. I think the whole approach that you have had to community is also reflected in what we have heard from city departments and library employees about how great you are to work with. So thank you very much for your service.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb, are there other members of council? I, I want to just take the time to thank you with all of my heart and soul for all of the work that you've done in our community. As usual, the way it goes in District nine, we're always embattled in something. And the way that we bonded and started to work with one another all had to do with the potential.
Speaker 1: Closure of.
Speaker 2: The Byers Library in West Denver, one of our Carnegie. And you.
Speaker 4: Were.
Speaker 2: So supportive, understanding that politically myself and the rest of the neighborhood had to get through it. We need to we needed to speak up. We needed to advocate and. And you completely supported it and understood that never took it personally. Just understood that we were fighting the good fight to keep the library open. And as a result, it's still open today with a beautiful mural by Carlota Espinosa and then us working together to try to find a site that was a confluence.
Speaker 1: For the three council districts.
Speaker 2: And finally we found a home for the Corky Gonzalez library. And I want to assure you that I believe with all my heart that that is going to be the center of the universe. As for many of the people that live in the neighborhood and many people that will be seeking and understanding what what the Latino movement , Chicano movement was in the city of Denver and how.
Speaker 1: Much it really did forge history.
Speaker 2: In the city. So I want to thank you for your graciousness and your understanding and your unwavering bravery. And yes, you are absolutely Wonder Woman.
Speaker 1: The city librarian.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Lehman. Hi. Lopez. Hi. Nevett. I. Ortega.
Speaker 1: Rob Shepherd. I Susman. Brooks Potts. I can reach Madam President by.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. It's 11 eyes. Thank you. 11 Eyes Proclamation 64 has been adopted. Councilwoman Lehman, is there someone here that you would like to invite up to the podium? Well. Would you like to come?
Speaker 7: Boo and introduce yourself. And. And then surely. Afternoon.
Speaker 9: My name is Jay Mead. I'm the president of the Denver Public Library Commission. And first, I want to say.
Speaker 10: How pleased the commission is given the signal service of Shirley to the people of the city and county of Denver. How pleased the commission is that she could be recognized.
Speaker 8: In this way.
Speaker 6: And now let me introduce Shirley. I'm all.
Speaker 9: Shirley, you stand. Shirley, I'm sorry. Our city librarian lady.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you all for the wonderful accolades it has been.
Speaker 9: This has really been the pinnacle.
Speaker 1: Of my career to.
Speaker 8: Work as the uber.
Speaker 2: Librarian.
Speaker 1: Here in the city of Denver. It has been a wonderful community, but it's it's certainly not just me. I would like to acknowledge I have some of my family here tonight who've put up with some long hours. I have my staff, two of my executive team and some other staff I think are sprinkled throughout some of our
Speaker 2: . Friends.
Speaker 1: Foundation folks. But I also want to thank city council and the mayor for the strong, strong support that you have.
Speaker 9: Given the libraries over the years. I know during those really tough.
Speaker 1: Budget times, I could always count on city council to support the library and provide whatever.
Speaker 8: Service you could.
Speaker 1: You know, given the situation to the library. I do a weekly podcast for staff. I've done over.
Speaker 2: 300 of them in.
Speaker 1: The last few years, and I always end the podcast with one phrase that I think is fitting for tonight, and.
Speaker 9: It includes not just.
Speaker 1: The staff, but all.
Speaker 8: Of us. Together, we make an.
Speaker 1: Extraordinary difference in our community.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Before we go into resolutions, I wanted to announce that we've been joined by Councilwoman Marsha Johnson. Thank you for coming in. Resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions from.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Shirley Amore for her service to the Denver Public Library. A proclamation honoring Shirley Amore for her service to the Denver Public Library.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02092015_15-0006
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Shepard, who's been moved and second accountable six approves the zoning map amendment. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map. Amendments in the Council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. And Speaker should begin the remarks by telling the council the names and sizes of residents and then they feel comfortable doing so. Their home addresses. A public hearing for council Bill six is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Good evening. Members of Council. My name is Steven Chester, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development. Here's Brant present the staff report for 2600 South Emergency Boulevard map a rezoning map amendment from OCA to GMU five subject site is located within Southeast Denver in Council District six within the University Park neighborhood. The subject site is located at the intersection of University Boulevard Investor Avenue, directly adjacent to Harvard Gulch. Now, rather than kind of hiding the the the punch line to this free zone, I'm just going to kind of outline some of the unique history with this case. Prior to 2010, the subject site was zoned r two. It's due to the fact that we did not have a zone district for our open space. In the old code. It's been used as surface parking for the neighboring multifamily project since around the 1960s. The city sold the land to the current land owner back in 2005. During the citywide rezoning in 2010, it was incorrectly rezone to OSA, which is the zone district for city owned and maintained open space due to a mistake of fact. Pretty much in 2010, the data that CPD used during the citywide rezoning was incorrectly identified. This land is still owned and maintained by the city, thus the need for this rezoning. So more details about the site. It's about 4000 square feet. It's currently vacant use as surface parking. As mentioned before, the property owners are requesting rezoning to bring the parcel into conformance with the adjacent parcel. The city is then take it upon ourselves to be the applicant for this rezoning in order to correct the mistake that was caused in 2010. Thus, the manager of CPD is the applicant for this rezoning. The requested zone district is the general urban neighborhood context the mixed use five story max Jamie five quickly walk through the existing context of the site, starting with the zoning along University Boulevard, primarily the general urban and neighborhood context series of heights from 12 to 5 and three. The surrounding single family zone districts are all ESU X in terms of the surrounding land use along your see below for some high higher density multifamily development. It's high in mid-rise buildings and primarily single family stable residential neighborhoods surrounding the site along with you see here the directly adjacent Harvard Gulch. In terms of the building form and scale, you can see directly to the north that first picture is a 12 storey multifamily building. The second picture is the site directly north of the subject site, which is the one story multifamily project. The third picture is the current condition of the site, and the last picture is the directly adjacent Harvard Gulch. The process to date we received a 9 to 0 recommendation from planning board had a discussion. Neighborhoods and planning committee in here are today at a hearing at City Council. Public outreach has been conducted throughout the process as outlined in the Denver Zoning Code with public notification given of tonight's public hearing. I also received a note from the City Park Community Council. They voted 11 no in favor of this rezoning application. Quickly walk through the review criteria for all of our official MAP amendments, starting with consistency with adopted plans. The adopted plans for this site are the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint. Denver and the Mercy University Park Plan, adopted in 2008 compliant 2000, outlines a number of strategies which support this rezoning application, primarily around the idea of promoting infill development where appropriate, in order for neighbors to live, work and play within their own neighborhoods. In addition to land use strategies which talk about creating a. High quality urban design along our mixed use corridors and lane user objective to clarify and update Denver's zoning ordinance and related ordinances, regulations and procedures to be consistent with the goals and objectives of Denver's citywide land use and transportation plan. Moving on to that plan, blueprint Denver at the time. Blueprint Denver was was created. This was still owned and maintained by the city of Denver. So the future land use classification is open space. However, the surrounding context is all single family residential, in which single family homes is the predominant housing type. However, that does not preclude higher density housing from being present in these areas, especially along mixed use and residential arterial streets in which University Boulevard is designated. It is also an area of stability. Areas of stability are used to maintain the existing character of neighborhoods. However, that does not preclude new development and redevelopment in order to prevent stagnation. As I mentioned before, University Boulevard is a residential arterial street. Vesper Avenue is an undesignated local street. Moving on to the University Park plan, there's a number of goals and strategies in this plan which support this rezoning. Specifically within the Urban Design and Land Use Goals section in which the plan identifies this area as a main street urban design district. And in that classification, the typical skills 2 to 5 storeys, up to 8 to 10 storeys in transit, transit rich activity centers and nodes. This is in order to create a healthy neighborhood or healthy neighborhood edges and encouraging dense, compact transit, supportive growth where appropriate. Somebody finds that there is this reasoning is consistent with the camp plan 2000 blueprint Denver and University Park Neighborhood Plan. In addition, the uniformity of district regulations in furthering the health, public, public health, safety and welfare are met due to the implementation of the city's adopted city plans. The justifying circumstances for this rezoning is a mistake of fact. As mentioned before, CBT finds this criterion is met due to the data used during the 2010 citywide rezoning incorrectly identified this parcel as city owned and maintained open space. Lastly, consistency with neighborhood context zoned district purpose and intent. The general urban context is primarily characterized by multi-unit residential uses and a variety of building forms. The proposed rezoning to Jimmy five brings the incorrectly zoned parcel and to closer alignment with the surrounding neighborhood context. CPD finds this criterion is met based on the plan recommendations for this area along with the existing and desired character of this neighborhood. With that, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria have been met.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chester. We have one speaker this evening, Mr. Texter.
Speaker 4: Fat tax of 45.35 Julian Street, Denver, Colorado. Members of Council. It was simply wrong for you to give yourselves a pay raise while the camping ban is still in effect and you have not provided for the home as a tax.
Speaker 2: Denver Mr. Texar, please stay on the topic of the public hearing, please.
Speaker 4: You made a factual error just as you did in this rezoning ordinance. And worse, you don't have enough respect for the people to submit it to a vote of the people.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Texar. So that concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council?
Speaker 1: Kathleen Robb Thank you, Mr. President. Well, this is pretty much technical rezoning. I am concerned that we have a blueprint map that shows this is open space from 2000 to 2003. So I worry about the consistency with the cities. Adopt a plan and I return to the question that I ask in committee. Why did Parks sell this? I understand it's been used for parking for a long time, which was on the first slide. But I'm wondering if it's a case of real estate not understanding that the land use concept was park. I want to know if Parks and Rec were advised of the sale and approved of it, and I haven't had a real answer since committee though I have to admit I didn't spend a lot of time following up until a constituent brought it to my attention this afternoon.
Speaker 6: Excellent question. In terms of Blueprint Denver, we'll be updating that in the near future. So hopefully we'll fix any of these inconsistencies in terms of the kind of reasoning for the sale back in 2005. Greg needs to go from Parks and Rec is here. Maybe you can provide a little more insight into that sale back in 2005 and kind of my search haven't been able to find any sort of official documentation with any sort of reasoning for the for the sale.
Speaker 1: But okay. I do really appreciate your being here from Parks and Rec.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry if I mispronouncing last name.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Greg Nowinski. I'm the park surveyor for the parks, familiar with property records and these types of issues. This was a real estate deal. Parks was not involved in this decision to sell this part of property. Originally, it was acquired as part of the Harvard Gulch drainage area. And as time goes on, these areas were incorporated in the parks maintenance category. So far is being consulted on the sale of it. Parks was not consulted with with this as far as I'm aware. So being city property, this was used as a parking lot by the adjoining property owners real estate saw fit to confirm that use and sell this property to the adjoining property owner. So it's not designated park property. It wasn't acquired to be park property, but it was in parks inventory as part of the Harvard Gulch drainage area.
Speaker 1: Do you have any idea if Parks and Rec was involved in that Blueprint Denver map that shows it as open space and identifies it? Our minutes from committee says Prior to 2002, the property was owned by the city and parks and the Parks and Rec land use concept was noted as natural open space.
Speaker 4: It would have been in parks inventory and noted as green or as park.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Sure.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Rob Carter. I'm going to take it.
Speaker 5: First, I want to thank Councilwoman Robb for that question, because that then makes me wonder how many other parcels do we have that are next to parks that might be might have been sold off? Or and I know that there's been a great effort in the city to try to wrap our arms around all of the park land and dedicate officially dedicate it so that it is protected land. So thank you for asking that question. My question is a little different, and it's about the choice of zoning that this is being changed to. And so I'd like to ask if you wouldn't mind coming back up and help us determine how that was decided? Because I had heard you say that originally it was our to land and this is GMU five and there is a difference in density between the GMU five and the older are two zoning. So how was that decided? And is there any I'd have to look back at the map to see if there is any other Jimmu five zoning adjacent to this property.
Speaker 6: So great question. So the Jimmy five was decided because is the the zoning of the parcel directly adjacent to the site along with the plan recommendation from the University Park Neighborhood Plan in terms of identifying.
Speaker 5: Pull that up on the map. Sure. Well, we're talking.
Speaker 6: Um. Yeah, that's probably the best one. So. University Boulevard. It's identified the plan as a in blueprint Denver and in the neighborhood plan as a residential arterial street. And so there's a primarily the general urban context is found at a variety of different densities you see some give you three directly north of the site is Jim U 12. And so Jim, you five is the site that's directly adjacent to this parcel. And it was CPI's recommendation that this parcel also be reason to give me five.
Speaker 5: So when you say adjacent it's actually across the street and beyond an additional property to the is that the north and.
Speaker 6: The the Jimmy five is directly kind of touching this parcel.
Speaker 5: Right. And the 12 is across the street.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 6: That's correct.
Speaker 5: Okay. Yeah, I was just trying to understand that because it didn't seem to make sense that this was next to open space, but yet we were going from an AR two zone to a GM U five. And so the property to I'm not sure is that the east on the right side of the property? Mm hmm. What is the zoning on that?
Speaker 6: So that would be across the alley between this property and property. Directly to the east is ESU d x. So a single use zoning district, single unit. Excuse me.
Speaker 5: So that's more in contrast to the old r-1 zoning, is that correct?
Speaker 6: Typically. But there's some differences.
Speaker 5: Okay. All right. Those are all the questions I have for right now. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember. Take it. Councilman Robbie, another question.
Speaker 1: I do. And thank you for your indulgence on this relatively straightforward rezoning. My question is, I see the bread Buchanan or CPD as the applicant on this, which indicates a technical error that you've found. But do you have any idea how the land will be used in the future? Is the current owner the same person who owns the adjoining GM? U5 Because I know it's addressed for university, it's not really right on university.
Speaker 6: So the parcel directly to the north is owned, is also owned by this this land owner of this subject site.
Speaker 1: And is this property necessary for him to to meet his parking requirements?
Speaker 6: Correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Rob, any other questions? What was seen on public hearing is now closed. Time for comment, Councilman Brown.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. There are some things I wish that could be done administratively. Unfortunately, this could not be a yes vote will correct a mistake of fact. Surely we all want to correct a mistake of fact. So let's vote yes. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Counsel Brown. Any other comments? Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 1: I will be supporting this tonight, but I do want to express my concern about the disconnect which was previous, not current, between real estate and parks, because I think people have become aware of those differences. But this has caused some problems in the past. Parks is very dedicated right now to designating as many parks and making sure there Servais is correct. But my if I voted against this, it wouldn't change the past. And right now it's being used this way. And there certainly is a use by right, I believe there on the property. So I will support this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: I just want to explain my vote as well. I think the last question that Councilwoman Robb asked about whether this particular property is needed by the adjacent property owner. I think by changing the zoning to a higher density, it affords the opportunity at some point in the future. If that owner wanted to change the what's on the site, they would be able to do something that is much bulkier if they level the building that they have now. But I think in general, the fact that it is being it is needed and is being used and will continue to be used by the adjacent property owner that I'm okay allowing that to move forward with the zone change. I would like at some point to see that whenever there is park land that is not dedicated, that is being proposed to be sold, that we are at a minimum informed about it, but should be allowed to vote on it as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments on Council Bill six? CNN on. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Brown. Hi, Fats. I can eat Lemon Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. Nevitt. Ortega. Rob. Rob, I. Shepherd Sussman. Hi, Brooks. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I am secretary. Please close the belly, announce the results. 3939 As Council Bill six has passed due to the President Day Holiday Council will meet next on Tuesday, February the 17th. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 1: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 0: Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2600 S. University Blvd. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 2600 South University Boulevard from OS-A (Open Space-3,000 square feet) to G-MU-5 (General Urban, Mixed Use, 5 stories) in Council District 6. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-7-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02022015_14-0963
|
Speaker 8: The existing context. This is a shot from the Coleman building on the east side on Perry Street over toward the west and sell signs like Park. Obviously, things are starting to happen. And then the existing land use, building form and scale east of Perry Street are primarily single family, some multifamily, all low rise, all low skill buildings . And then to the Southwest, where we actually have an existing parking structure on the site, there are some very small houses. Unfortunately, I couldn't zoom in well enough in the sun to get to those, but also similar scale housing to the west of the site. And then also a school building to the west as well. There is a pending rezoning that you may hear about, which is not the subject of tonight's hearing. But just for your information, is block one of these cell salons like redevelopment area and this is at the southeast corner of Stuart and 17th. Again, that will come before you and the future. The review criteria for the amendment to add the design overlay tonight includes all of our standard rezoning criteria with consistency of adopted plans, uniformity of our district regulations, furthering the public health, safety, safety and welfare, and then also justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. There is an additional criteria that is applied as part of our code where the City Council may approve an official map amendment for a property located within an approved GDP or general development plan area, taking into consideration the approved GDP. With that, a summary of the consistency with adopted plans. We've included comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint Denver from 2000 to the West Conflict Facts Plan from 2006 and the South Sloan's Lake General Development Plan, which, while it's not an adopted comprehensive plan supplement, it is a GDP. And as I explained, can be considered in this this pending rezoning proposal. The comprehensive plan always has standard support for infill debate and neighborhood development compatible with existing neighborhoods. But drilling down further into blueprint Denver and the West Colfax Plan Blueprint Denver supports. The site is an area of change where new growth should be channeled. We already know that's happening with the development of South Sloan's Lake. The concept is for mixed use. None of those things are really at task today, and in terms of the zoning, it is still going to be mixed use. Five We're talking about restricting the heights along the edges to be compatible with what our plan recommendations say. The West Colfax Plan encourages height transitions to existing lower density. Lower height was Colfax neighborhood blocks like Stewart and Perry Street. The West Colfax Plan designates the whole site as a town center and calls for compact development that radiates from a dense core to lower intensity at the fringe. Further support is in the South sounds like general development plan. And if you look at the the picture of that GDP on this slide, within the dotted line are the areas that are sort of called for as the core of the dense core. And then all of those edges and some of that within the dotted line would be the areas where the Doe five or design overlay is is placed. And your staff report also outlines in detail what those height transitions are. They're also on this slide. In sum, the idea of five an application of the DE five to the areas that we know as blocks one through six between 17. Canellos, Stuart and Perry Street implement the height limitations as recommended in our plans. The use this design overlay as we explained during the text amendment, but I'll reiterate uses a distance from the zone lot line and those measurements are in the Denver zoning code. The proposed DOE five mapping on the site provides context sensitive height, transitions to the adjacent neighborhood blocks and again does not change the base zoning of the site. The Math Amendment does result in regulations that are uniform across the district for All Lands Map Deo five, which at this time are only contemplated at this site and furthers the public health, safety and welfare, providing for context sensitive transitions that provide for pedestrian friendly environments at the street level where their experience of place is most apparent and where people actually can be part of the streetscape. This provides safety and eyes on the neighborhood. Justifying circumstances in this case so that it is in the public interest to encourage a departure from the existing zoning through application of supplemental zoning regulations. That is, the DE five that are consistent with the intent and purpose of and meet the specific criteria stated in Article 9.4.5.1. That is the article within our overlay regulations in general that design overlay districts implement land use and urban design recommendations and standards set forth in neighborhood or small area plans. They provide uniform standards for mitigating the impact of more intensive uses and reinforce desired character for newly developing areas. All three of these things in place at this site. The CMC's five and I say proposed here it actually is really an adopted now oh five will allow up to five storey buildings at certain locations, three in others and four on other blocks. As the graphic showed you, the DFI provides limitations on height to address compatibility between higher height, future development and lower intensity. West Colfax Blocks. We do put this through the Standard City Review with all of our departments. We've received no substantial comments from any of our other city departments. It really is substantially L.A., CSU Public Review. It has gone through extensive public review as it's associated with the South Sloan's Lake redevelopment and as it's continued progress and all notice was provided to applicable registered neighborhood groups, including the West Colfax Association of Neighbors, Denver Neighborhood Association, Sloan's Citizens Group, the West Colfax Business Improvement District, Northwest Quadrant Association, the I.N.S. and the Sloan's Like Neighborhood Association. Public Comments. We've not received any letters specific to the City Council hearing. We did receive a couple that I did forward to you later this afternoon that were from planning board, in case you were interested, that were really submitted at that time for the whole South Sloan's Lake approach . Overall, there was support for the approach. There were questions about the use of applicable city plans and how we use GDP's or don't use GDPs and concerns regarding the overall development impact. So some things were not as relevant to the actual rezoning discussion, but more relevant to some site plan. Specific questions that people had with that staff has done its analysis and is recommending approval to the City Council, based that finding of all rereview criteria have been met.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Ms. HOST We have six speakers tonight and I'm gonna call all six of you. You can make your way up to the front pew. Cameron Bergeron. Dan Shaw. Trevor Hines. Brian Levitt. Rabbi Aaron Wasserman. I apologize. It was cut off and Ben Stetler so you six can come up to the front pew and Mr. Burton, you can go ahead and begin your remarks.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Cameron Bertrand I work with EFG South Sloan's Lake LLC one. We are the property owner and we address at 475 17th Street. I just wanted to quickly say, as the property owner, since we are not the applicant in this instance, that we are supportive of what the City and Councilwoman Sheppard are doing here and feel like it flows logically from the city's West Flex Plan effort, followed by the general development plan and the design overlay to then implement what was in the general development plan makes an awful lot of sense and we think it has given a lot of assurance to both our developers, but also the surrounding neighborhood that what's coming is flowing from those previous planning efforts. So with that, thanks very much and we appreciate your time.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Burton. Dan Schorr.
Speaker 0: Yes, hi. Dan Schorr from the West Colfax Business Improvement District. So, yeah, I just want to indicate where our support for this map amendment, we believe that the what it does is it really memorializes what was in the West Colfax Plan and St Anthony's task force in order to integrate the neighborhood with the redevelopment site. It also and then especially with design guidelines that the property owner has issued, it works to attract more market rate development on the site, which is really important and which was recommended in the plan and also is very important to stimulate the kind of neighborhood serving retail that we've been working to achieve in and around West Colfax . And then finally so and then from the business development perspective, having market rate housing obviously means that you have incomes with greater disposable income and that as such, it just becomes a very important part of the revitalization of West Colfax. And then finally, by striking balance between existing housing stock and more intense development, the MAP amendment also supports to the plans vision of a neighborhood developing with sufficient rooftops to support neighborhood serving retail and services. And then finally, that also works with greater numbers of people. It also supports the West Colfax plans recommendations for a walkable, transit oriented neighborhood and healthy neighborhood. So we're confident that the code change proposed is really going to promote the kind of investment that the plan envisioned and that we've been working for. So we're very much in supportive support of it. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Trevor Hines.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Hello. My name is Trevor Hines and my address is 278, a South Monaco Parkway, Denver, Colorado. I am the CEO of Denver Real Estate Development, together with my partner, Brian Jay Levitt. I've heard many people say that some 2000 people a month have been moving to Denver as a net migration. America's a free country, and many fine people, citizens and non-citizens, choose to make Denver their home to accommodate these people. The city itself is forced to grow. What was once sufficient in terms of retail infrastructure, office and housing cannot meet the needs of the future in a growing city like ours. This requires the construction of new buildings. The business of development is to build new buildings in areas with the greatest potential that is currently unrealized. There is no place I can think of that fits this definition better than West Colfax. Sloan's Lake Park is beautiful. Mile High Stadium is less than one mile away. There's a new light rail stop at the Dry Gulch and there's close access to downtown. And yet the residents of West Colfax are treated to elevated levels of crime, outdated retail and an overall lack of services. Denver has sprawl to the east and the west, the north and the south, and there are natural limits to this growth. The new generation of homebuyers that is entering the market is looking for more urban places to live. This means places that can be reached on foot, by bike, by train and by bus, and not just by automobile as restricted by the design overlay. We intend to build some 224 units on block one of the St Anthony's redevelopment, moving from two stories on the western portion up to a maximum of 12 on the northeastern corner . The design overlay in front of city council would restrict the rights of the landowner and reduce what could be built on the site. Nevertheless, we are in support of this motion because it would cement the form of what we intend to build as a promise to the neighborhood. We have conceived of a building that we feel is elegant and modern and sensitive to its surroundings. Under the current zoning of CMCs five. It is possible to build an even greater number of apartments on the site, perhaps 300 or so. The map overlay would pave the way for a development that could bring greater height and greater quality without excessive density. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Brian Levitt. Good evening. My name is Brian Levitt. I'm the president of Nava Real Estate Development, 100 Fillmore, Denver, Colorado, 80206 Members of the City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. Our company, Nava Real Estate Development is focused on building quality projects in the Denver community, where Trevor and I both live. In Denver, we have kids. We both have several girls who are going to school in Denver. And I actually am a product of Denver public schools, starting at Hallett, going to Cole, Thomas Jefferson and staying here. So the opportunity to develop West Colfax is a really great opportunity for us. And I think that initially one thing that really attracted us to us was not only the neighborhood, not only the chance to help revive West Colfax, which is really exciting, but as Trevor mentioned, to take advantage of one of the greatest assets in town, which is Sloan Lake Park. Now we've been watching the news and for several years now I've been studying the economy and clearly building for sale housing. Condo housing is a very big challenge right now. And to do that, we don't take that challenge lightly. For several years, we have been meeting with law firm specialists and have developed a very extensive strategy to try to put for sale condos out into the Denver market. We think it's very important. We're very excited about the opportunity. And what we found out is really there's one simple word that is the answer for doing this, and that's quality. And quality comes at an expense, but quality is also what we are planning to build here. We've hired Arnell Design and Munoz Alvin to build this great building. It will be LEED certified as everything we build is LEED certified, and this is going to be the one of the first.
Speaker 0: Well certified.
Speaker 4: Projects in the world. It's already registered right now, if we're fortunate enough to build it. So why Stone Lake again? The project, the master development overall? It's an incredible project. The Streetscapes, the Metro District, it makes it all real. And again, being right on the lake is incredible. The general development plan that we originally read several years ago spoke of height from 8 to 12 storeys high. And being a condo developer, I can tell you that we're not going to build what condos and if not bought for the building being 12 storeys high, we're not going to build a for sale product and it goes.
Speaker 0: Back to the quality issue.
Speaker 4: So we obviously we have taken part in numerous community meetings over the past year and really feel confident that we have tried to flush out any of the concerns and we've listened to the members of the community and we try to be reactive to them. We feel that this proposal supports the community goals of a balanced housing type at St Anthony's. It will help revitalize West Colfax and Sloane Lake. It will capitalize on nearby transit station and most importantly, will allow more Denver residents to live on the lake. So we thank you. We humbly request your approval of the overlay and eventually of the CMC's 12 on the 17th. Thank you very much. Thank you. Rabbi Aaron Wasserman. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Aaron Wasserman, President and CEO of Sheba Tourism. We are actually neighbors of the proposed overlay lanes development. So I want to thank city council and Councilwoman Susan Shepherd for the consideration of as a especially as a neighbor to the idea of lowering the density, at least at the edges. So there's a decent transition for the homeowners as well as the school and everyone that's right across from the property. So we are in a for this this overlay and hopefully a student city council approve this overlay to have the consideration of the community that's around their existing community. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Ben Stetler.
Speaker 0: Hi there. Good evening. My name is Ben Stetler. I'm co-president of the West Colfax Association of Neighbors registered neighborhood organization in West Colfax of just north of 600 registered members. We can supports the mapping of the DOE five at the site because it implements the vision of a transition between new buildings at St Anthony's in the existing neighborhood. I am hopeful you will support the mapping of the deal filed this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Well, that concludes our speakers is now time for questions. Do we have any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Chapman.
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam Secretary, I was hoping you could put the pin this sort of simplistic graph up. Or is it Deirdre again that shows the height transitions proposed by this design overlay? Here we go. Okay. So I just. There's been quite a few things to discuss tonight, and I just wanted my colleagues to be really clear on what the design overlay is proposing this evening. And that is the pieces in purple. And the the green piece. Is that correct, Deirdre? That is on the edges of the overall development on both the Stuart Street side as well as the Perry Street side. And I just I just wanted to make that clear.
Speaker 0: And those numbers are stories.
Speaker 2: And those numbers are stories.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Shepard. Any other questions from members of council seen on public hearing on 963 is now including the time for comments? Councilwoman shepard.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So colleagues, if you're having a little bit of deja vu all over again, there's a reason for that. And that's because we actually voted on the text amendment. That is the companion piece of this. Was it two weeks ago during January 5th. So you may feel like you've heard this twice and it's because you have. I just want to confirm that for you. But I want to. The reason that I'm supporting this tonight, number one, as the companion piece to the text amendment. But secondly, there's a couple of different things going on at this site. And it's important to remember that this site is going to be sold off individually, the individual blocks to different developers. And so this tool is an opportunity to codify what the general development plan says, so that this will be literally in our code and provide that consistency of expectations for what exactly will happen as this site develops overall over the next two, five, ten years, and that we ensure that the transitions between the various projects and that that the new projects and how they transition to the neighborhood is codified. And so that's what we're trying to achieve here. I just want to make sure that people aren't a little bit confused. One of the speakers spoke to the zoning of BLOCK One, which is an item that will be before us later. So don't confuse what was said about that with what we're actually voting on tonight. And that is the design overlay that implements the three stories on Stuart and Perry and then the four stories right there next to the what, as many of you may know, is the parking garage that remains from the St Anthony's site. So I do support this tonight and I would kindly beg your indulgence to support it as well. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I just want to add my support as well. I know this is a project that's been around for a very, very long time in the Sloan's Lake neighborhood. I know I attended many meetings when the hospital was still on the site and much of the meetings were taking place there. There has been lots of discussion around the issue of height. And I just want to commend Councilwoman Sheppard for her efforts in working both with the developer and with the community to define the edges of this project and make it clear for everyone, including other developers who may yet to come and build on this site. I'm also a very strong proponent of affordable housing, but in this area of the city, there already is a lot of low income or affordable housing, actually, a combination of both. And on this site, I think it makes perfect sense that there is market rate housing that will help ensure that we are successful in bringing many of the types of services that will serve these neighborhoods and keep some of Denver's tax dollars in Denver and not have them leave to Jefferson County because folks who live along the western edges of the city, by and large, for lots of different services, whether it's going to the movies or oftentimes shopping restaurants many times will cross over and spend money in Jefferson County. And if we can keep a lot of those tax dollars in Denver, when we deal with tough economic times, it means that we're capturing those in our Denver general revenue account and not Lakewood or Wheat Ridge or one of the neighboring cities. So I just want to also commend the development team who has really gone above and beyond in working with folks like Villa Park, the West Colfax Neighborhood Business Association. And tonight's presence, if you will, is a testament to that, because I think had. This been brought forward at the early stages of this project coming forward? You probably have a room full of people expressing concerns about height and maybe density and some of those issues. That all got worked out through this process of, you know, multiple meetings with the neighborhood. So kudos to your team and to our city staff who have been involved in this project. They know there was a lot of give and take with the neighborhood on many of these issues. And I think at the end of the day, this is going to be a good project, if you will. I know there'll be multiple projects within it that will benefit this whole quadrant of the city. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other comment on 963 seen on Madam Secretary? Roll call.
Speaker 2: Shepard Sussman. But I can eat. LEMON Hi, Monteiro. NEVITT Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 4: Madam Secretary, please cast your vote to announce the results tonight. Tonight's 963 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. There is no pre adjournment announcement, so seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 0: Think.
Speaker 2: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 1: Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 2: You are watching Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
|
Bill
|
Approves a map amendment to rezone property located at approximately 1600 Raleigh Street from C-MX-5 (Urban Center, Mixed Use, 5 stories) to C-MX-5/proposed DO-5 in Council District 2. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a map amendment to rezone property located at approximately 1600 Raleigh Street from C-MX-5 (Urban Center, Mixed Use, 5 stories) to C-MX-5/proposed DO-5 in Council District 2. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-12-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01262015_15-0023
|
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill took 23 series to 2015 be published.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. I'm going to start with the comments and I'm calling this out for a vote. I'm going to make a motion to amend, but before I do that, I just want to make sure I give some background. So for those aren't familiar with this, bill is about to give you a little bit on that council. Bill 23 is in regards to setting the salaries for the elected officers for terms beginning July 20th of 2015. Those elected officers are the mayor, the auditor, president of City Council, council members, as well as our clerk and the quarter by charter that this body is responsible for doing that. The charter allows salary increase. That's to be of the lesser of two amounts, the cumulative increase in the Denver, Boulder, Greeley Consumer Price Index, or the cumulative increase in the mean salary of employees in the career service over the previous four years. Those respective numbers determined by the Office of Human Resources over the four years are 11.3 for the cumulative CPI and 10.3 for the city employees. So the elected office of the elected officials are limited to a salary increase over the next four years of no more than 10.3. The bill before us right now has the current salaries to be increased by 10.3%, effective July 20th of 2015. The amendment that I'm about to move forward and I will have to read all the numbers so you have to bear with me will be phases in the 10.3% increase allowed by the city charter for the next set of Denver elected officials who will take place for four year terms on July 20th, 2015 and to equal portions 5.165, effective July 20th, 2015, and 5.165, effective July 18th, 2016. So now I'm going to need to read those numbers just so that makes sure everyone is aware what those numbers are. So the annual salary beginning July 20th, 2015 to July 18th, 2016, will be for the following offices. The Mayor 163,227. The Auditor 141,168. The President of Denver City Council. 98,136. Members of the Denver City Council. 87,636 for the clerk and recorder. 141,168 and then effective July 18th, 2016 to July 15th, 2019, the salaries will be for the mayor 171,658, 150 100 for the auditor. 148,459. For the president of the Denver City Council 103,205 for the members of the Denver City Council. 92,162 and for the clerk and recorder. 148,459. And so that is my motion to amend in those following particulars. So just to recap briefly, we are taking the current bill in this form of a 10.3% increase effective immediately July 20th, 2015, and passing that out 5.165%, effective July 20th, 2015. And then the second 5.165%, effective July 18, 2016. So hopefully I did not confuse anybody. It is now time for comments. Councilwoman Fox on the motion to amend.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. On the motion to amend my comments really are going to go to why it is inappropriate for us to have an increase at all. So I will be voting against your motion. Simply because I'd be voting against any proposal that would. That would raise the salary.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman, but.
Speaker 10: I don't we don't need that now because he has a different.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Lemon.
Speaker 10: I would like the amendment to be voted on, and then I'd like to make my comments on the motion.
Speaker 1: Not a problem. All right. So do we have any other any other comments on the motion to amend? Seeing the manner of Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I can each layman. LOPEZ All right. MONTEIRO No.
Speaker 7: Nevitt I.
Speaker 3: ORTEGA No. Rob No. Shepherd no. Susman, I. Brooks, I. Brown, no. Fats? No. Ortega. Rob. I thought I voted.
Speaker 9: Oh, I didn't push it. Thank you. No.
Speaker 1: Am Secretary. Please close the venue. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: Eight ice, five nays.
Speaker 1: Eight AIS five nays. The motion to. I need to read that correctly. The Motion Council Bill 23 has been amended. Got it. Councilman Lopez, will you please vote counter bill 23 on the floor to be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, I move that council bill 23 series of 2015 be placed upon will be published as amended.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Now time for comments from members of council. Do we have any comments on 23 published as amended? Councilwoman Lehman.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I voted. I am going to vote for this motion because the four separate three reasons. The first one is that the members of council are the most important people who touch the most citizens of the city in Denver. They are from my 12 years in the Navy of experience as being one of them. The ones that people call to thank you for the good things that the city does. And to call to say we don't like this thing that the city does, or this is the problem I'm having because my sidewalk is broken and it needs to be fixed or whatever. But there are 13 of us and we have the ability to talk to every single one of the citizens of Denver and we represent them. My second reason is I called out Brendan Hammond from Finance to say, okay, so this motion, this motion, what percentage of the 2015 entire city budget and it is 1/100 of 1% of this proposed city budget for the kind of representation we offer the citizens of Denver. That isn't even that incredible, that that's how we have to pay for it. And the third and my third reason is because at this salary, anybody who wants to run for council is at least not hindered by the salary. And so it opens to feel free anybody who thinks they'd like to be part of this city council. So thank you. And I will be voting for it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman, Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I will not be voting for this. The Charter requires the current council to set the salaries for the newly elected officials, but not to raise them. In fact, we could lower them and I personally would vote for that. If you go by supply and demand and free enterprise seems to run on supply and demand, salaries do not seem to deter the many candidates currently running. As of an hour ago, there were 50 to 52 people seeking office. Some candidates themselves have already urged us to hold the line and not vote for these. No legislative body and I consider us a legislative body should consider its work more valuable than teachers whose median salaries 56,000, or Denver's working families whose average household income is less than 63,000. Remember that the charter does not require the council job to be a full time job. And I've observed over the years that time spent doing a job does not necessarily correlate with the quality of the work. As for the other elected officials, none require a raise. The current mayor, while voting for the 2011 race when he served on council, said he wouldn't take the mayor's increase. So now taking his current salary. What she'd certainly be entitled to do would be a raise for him. There will be a new auditor, so a raise isn't necessary. In fact, should a council member be elected as the new auditor, that would ultimately be a $50,000 raise without raising any of the pay. When the salary of clerk and recorder was established, the salary was actually initially set at $39,000 above that of other county clerk and recorders of similar county size. It was a whopping salary that this council decided to give, and our clerk doesn't even have the responsibility of overseeing the licensure of motor vehicles the way many of the others do. Our work on behalf of the people should be about public service. The salaries are already generous. Let's keep them where they are.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Any other comments on 23 C? None, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I can eat. Lemon. Hi, Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. No. Nevitt. Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob. No. Shepherd. No. Susman. Brooks. Brown. No. Fights?
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting announced the results.
Speaker 3: Eight eyes five.
Speaker 1: Eight eyes five nays Council vote 23 is ordered published as amended. The final consideration will be on Monday, February 2nd. Madam Secretary, I believe that's all we had called out, correct? Yes. We are ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Lopez, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions number 19 and 21, 22 and 33, all series of 2015 be adopted.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Section 18-81, D.R.M.C. setting the salaries of elected officers for terms beginning July 20, 2015
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Sets the increase in the salaries of elected officials beginning in July 20, 2015 as allowed byCharter as the lesser of the cumulative increase in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI or the cumulative increase in the mean salary of employees in the Career Service over the previous four years, or 10.3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-15-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01202015_14-1099
|
Speaker 2: I please close the voting and the results. 3939 1098 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We're moving on to our second public hearing on Council Bill 1099. Councilwoman Fox, would you please put 1099 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Certainly, Mr. President, I the council bill 1099 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for 1099 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 11: Hello again, Tracy Huggins with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. Again, I beg your indulgence, as you will hear many of the same comments I made just a moment ago repeated here is this We do have to do a separate public hearing for each of these projects. So this project now is Sloan's BLOCK seven West, which we will be asking City Council to amend the urban redevelopment plan to include the Sloan's BLOCK Seven West Project, as well as to establish the Sloan's BLOCK seven West sales tax increment area. Again. The urban redevelopment area was established in August 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 area was occupied by the Saint Anthony Central Hospital campus prior to its closure to support much of the redevelopment. Two of the of the hospital campus, two metropolitan districts are in place that will be used to finance a variety of infrastructure improvements. However, even with the use of the 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 is challenged by difficulty in attracting new neighborhood serving retail to a largely blighted stretch of West Colfax and the anticipated extraordinary costs to support structured parking to meet the urban design objectives of Main Street zoning. Therefore, at the time the Urban Redevelopment Plan was originally approved, it also approved the creation of a property tax increment area that is coterminous with the Metropolitan District boundaries to support future projects. Any property tax increment generated within the property tax increment area can only be utilized on approved projects. The project being considered through an amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan is the redevelopment of the western portion of BLOCK Seven, located at West Colfax Avenue and Stewart Street. The Sloan's BLOCK seven West Project site is approximately 1.15 acres within the urban redevelopment area, and in conjunction with the Sloan's BLOCK Seven East Project will complete the redevelopment of BLOCK Seven. The project consists of a new 32,600 square foot Alamo Drafthouse Theater and approximately 26 surface parking spaces. The theater building will consist of eight screens, averaging approximately 100 seats per screen. The operator expects the theater to attract approximately 295,000 patrons annually. The site will benefit from the use of 145 stalls of structured parking through a permanent access easement agreement granted by the owner of the parking structure immediately north of the site. The redevelopment plan will help to activate a section along heavily trafficked West Colfax Avenue, bringing entertainment service and dining options to the diverse Denver community. The project will also act as the gateway to the fully redeveloped South Sloan's Lake area. The Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizes TURA to finance projects within the urban redevelopment area by the use of tax increment financing. The plan amendment will add the Sloan's BLOCK seven West sales tax increment area. Jurist staff has reviewed the budgets and proforma submitted by the developer and believes there is a financing gap in the project of $3,400,000. This financing gap will be addressed through sales and property tax increment generated by the redevelopment of the property as well as amounts from the broader property tax increment area. Following redevelopment, the site is anticipated to generate approximately $110,000 per year in net property tax increment and approximately $130,000 per year in net sales tax increment. These incremental tax revenues, as supplemented by additional area wide property tax increment of approximately $355,000 per year will be used to reimburse the developer for eligible expenses over a period not to exceed 25 years. In approving the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan, City Council found the 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 the 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 the blight in the urban redevelopment area. To renew and improve the character and environment of the urban redevelopment 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 urban renewal area. By creating conditions from which these areas can draw new economic strength to more effectively, use underdeveloped land within the urban redevelopment area to encourage land use patterns within the urban redevelopment area where pedestrians are safe and welcome to promote a diverse, sustainable neighborhood economy, including mixed use and commercial development opportunities within the urban redevelopment area. Again, there are a number of legislative findings that Council must make before approving this urban redevelopment plan amendment, including that the Sloan's Black Seven West Project is located within the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Area and will promote the objectives set forth in the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan 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 by the project. 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 the Urban Renewal Authority 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 on December 18th, 2014, which is at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. The statute requires that no more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the Plan Amendment. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on this Urban Redevelopment Plan Amendment. The statute also requires that two years must elapse before council can 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 an Urban Redevelopment Plan amendment for this project. Also, the plan amendment contains no property that was included in a previously submitted urban redevelopment plan amendment that was not approved by the City Council. As such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months since any prior public hearing is inapplicable. On December 3rd, 2014, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the proposed amendment to the St Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to the Denver comprehensive plan and applicable supplements. A letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing and during request the City Council concur with that finding. 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 readable rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Area by Private Enterprise. Alamo Sloan's LLC is a developer and a private development entity who intends to undertake the redevelopment project. This project will utilize property tax increment financing accordingly. Denver Public Schools District One has been permitted to participate in an advisory capacity with respect to the inclusion in the plan of the tax allocation provisions authorized by Section 31 Desk 25, 107 and nine of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. And finally, the city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the Sloan's BLOCK Seven West Project area for the period during which the incremental taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address additional infrastructure requirements in city services should they arise. In closing, again, we are very pleased to be working with the city to bring this project forward. A recent query of Google Maps revealed that except for several movie theaters that you would not take your children to. There are currently no movie theaters in Denver, west of I-25. This void is clearly recognized with the expected attendance of nearly 300,000 people to this venue. With the exciting redevelopment activities that are occurring in West Denver, the opportunity to fill a missing entertainment niche while also providing the type of catalytic project that was originally contemplated, is a win win for this neighborhood and the surrounding community. This loans block seven West Project, in conjunction with the Sloan's BLOCK Seven East Project, will help in the broader revitalization of this important corridor. We ask for your favorable consideration of this plan amendment and again will be able to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ms.. Huggins. We have three speakers for this public hearing, and I will call all three. You can make your way up to the front pew. Tom two franzia, jesselyn, chavez, zanny and sean. Okay, so you three can make your way into the front pew and Mr. de franzia, you can go ahead and begin your remarks
Speaker 0: . Thank you again for considering this amendment. Approving the amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan will allow for the construction of the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema and also for the redevelopment of the Office Building and construction of retail space. I believe true to the mission of Denver's economic plan, this project will be a driving force that advances economic prosperity . For this part of Denver by being.
Speaker 2: The catalyst that will.
Speaker 0: Revitalize the West Colfax Business corridor. The news that the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema will also be a part of Sloan's and West. Colfax has raised a tremendous amount of excitement in the neighborhood. We are confident that Alamo Drafthouse track record for success and pioneering projects in other challenged areas will be repeated in the West Colfax Business Corridor and surrounding neighborhoods. We're also confident that by anchoring the southern edge of the new Sloane's project, we will bring new customers for businesses currently operating on West Colfax and stimulate the development of abandoned lots and empty buildings. We are excited to create up to 150 new jobs in Act First Source Hiring and utilize small business enterprises in our construction. We're also excited to establish ourselves in the Sloane's community as business owners and operators offering film entertainment for an underserved area. The theater will be a great amenity for arts and entertainment, where guests can enjoy made to order food and Colorado microbrews served to the seats at affordable prices. Our signature programing, film festivals and free family films that run all summer long are a part of what has made Alamo Drafthouse successful. Just as integral to our success are the valuable services we provide to the communities in which we operate. The neighborhood surrounding Sloan's Lake and south of West Colfax have a longstanding history of diversity and community and Alamo Drafthouse Cinema intends to contribute to that. This next statement is taken directly from our guiding principles, which have been in place for many years in our posted in every one of our locations. And woven into the fabric of how we conduct our business. We're tied in. And by the way, everybody has a copy of all these principles as well. We're tied to the communities surrounding each location, and we do our part to make those communities better places to live. Our locations are unique, serving those neighborhoods in an organic, natural way. They share many similarities, but ultimately, each theater is unique to the community it serves. We enact this principle by being locally managed, hiring local staff, by listening to and engaging with the community around us and putting, as you said earlier, our money where our mouth is . When making commitments, for example, in 2014, the Alamo Drafthouse, Littleton hosted 47 discounted nonprofit events and school field trips for such groups as the Boys and Girls Club. Muscular Dystrophy Association Make a Hero Foundation Littleton Ballet Building Family Foundation. Bemis Library. Girl Scouts of Metro Denver. The School Hotel Echo.
Speaker 2: Miss to differentiate you 3 minutes is okay.
Speaker 0: I want to thank you again and thanks especially to Susan Sheppard for all her hard work that she's put towards this project. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Diferencia. Jesselyn Chavez, R.D..
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Jesselyn Charles, and I'm here on behalf of Girls Inc of Metro Denver. I'm excited to be here because we have been an organization that's been rooted in the West Colfax.
Speaker 4: Corridor for 32 years.
Speaker 5: We've been serving girls in that area for our entire history, so we're excited for something like the Alamo Drafthouse to come into our community. The girls that we serve are coming in from the neighborhoods and like was mentioned earlier, there is no there is nothing there for them to access like this. So for them to share and are, you know, wanting a safe out of school time, we're really excited to have that come. Alamo Drafthouse, now being placed in Littleton even still has had a great impact on the work that we do. They've been extremely generous and providing us with a number of resources in the past year. So we can't even imagine what would be available to us to have them here in our community when we're looking forward to what is coming in the next few months. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Michelle Chavez. Trevisan. Shana Shea.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm Shauna Sham, the executive director of the Building Family Foundation based in Littleton, Colorado. I am here to support the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema. Yes, it's a theater, but it's actually grown to quite more. It's a strategic partner, a strategic philanthropic partner and a great neighbor. They've been invaluable in supporting our mission of teaching life skills, employment skills.
Speaker 8: Soft skills, leadership skills to youth in the south metro area.
Speaker 0: There, and have been incredibly supportive of our youth film series and our summer film school. So in addition to a movie theater, you're going to be getting a great neighbor and incredible community partner. So I'm just really excited about this expansion and I know they'll have a great impact on on this area. So thank you for allowing us to speak.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Shame. That concludes our speakers. Time for questions of members of the Council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: I'd like to ask Tracy Huggins if she wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. So Tracey, for anybody that is watching who has not been involved in this process, can you explain why we have two separate tax increment districts for what may seem as one project to people looking at it from the outside?
Speaker 11: Certainly. And in fact, this came to us as one project initially for the entirety of the block, but there were a number of unique challenges with the type of development that was looking to occur that caused the development team to actually split it into two separate projects as such. Each of them have made a request for tax increment assistance through the Urban Redevelopment Authority, and we will be entering into discrete redevelopment agreements with each of those entities. So with Lyttleton Capital Partners as well as with the The Alamo, we are look, because each project is looking to generate its own increment to pay for its own level of expenses. That's why we're looking to have the two separate sales tax increment areas so that they each will be able to take that as a benefit that which they themselves create. In addition, as I said, they will be sharing in the broader property tax increment area that is being created throughout the balance of the site . But it really is because there are they are two separate projects with two separate re developers, each looking to benefit from the sales tax increment that they themselves generate.
Speaker 10: I'm not sure if you're the right person to answer a question about the parking. So both of these projects are proposing to use part of the parking in the garage that is still existing on the site. And so my question is what other parcels or properties that have already come forward are proposing to use that same garage ? I know, for example, the theater will probably be most highly utilized in the evening when the office building and other uses on the site may not be available. So that probably makes sense. But can you just talk about that for sure?
Speaker 11: The the other primary user of the parking garage will be new residential development that is occurring on what would be one, two, three, four, block five with the parking garage being on block six. So BLOCK five is currently under redevelopment of four new rental residential units. That will be the primary user of that, the balance of the parking garage.
Speaker 10: And that's the property that is to the north of the garage. That's under construction.
Speaker 11: To the.
Speaker 6: East.
Speaker 11: Of the garage.
Speaker 10: Okay.
Speaker 11: What would you like me to put on the map?
Speaker 10: That would be helpful.
Speaker 11: Let me see if I can do that. As I. As I say that. And I just click to.
Speaker 10: Show the only other user of the garage besides these two projects that we're reviewing tonight, the residential. And as.
Speaker 4: Far.
Speaker 11: As I know, I'm looking for two other nods in the audience. Yes. That it would be the the residential as well as in the commercial uses on block seven. Okay. So, Councilwoman Ortega, this is a obviously an older picture, but you can see where it says BLOCK.
Speaker 4: Six where the.
Speaker 11: Parking structure is located. Again, the topic of our conversation tonight is block seven. BLOCK five is the site that is currently under construction for the residential with the residential development.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Rob.
Speaker 4: Well, that was a very serious question. My question is for the representative from Alamo free movies in the summer for kids and their parents.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Every day, the summer when the kids are out on summer break prior to noon, we schedule a free family film where parents and kids can come and watch free in the theater.
Speaker 4: Okay. That was a commercial time for you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Kathryn Moran, Catwoman Fox, thank you.
Speaker 9: Also for Mr. de France here. They don't go far. It's interesting to find out about these free summer movies because one of the concerns I had followed a comment by the district councilwoman last week about the importance of having family friendly development in northwest Denver and around the Sloan's Lake. And when I did some research about the movie chain, I discovered that the admission and age policy, by and large not entirely, but by and large, was truly not designed for an area with children. The stated policy that I saw was age policy 18 and up. Children six and up will be allowed only with a parent or guardian. No children under age of six will be allowed. And then there was also reference in the Littleton one to the dinner package with a movie that restricted everybody to age 21. So I'm trying to figure out I mean, this may be is your way of balancing things, but it does not appear that this is a theater really designed for attracting children.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I could understand your concern by reading the policies. First of all, it's children under six are not permitted in a PG movie, a rated PG movie. Children under six are permitted with their parents. So so we don't completely shut them out. And secondly, Alamo Drafthouse is a family theater. We are not a theater where parents come and drop off their teenagers and drop off their kids to hang out and to loiter and to watch movies. We focus on the movie experience as being a family event, and we provide a nice text free talk, free environment in which families can watch movies together. And we focus on family programing. We play first run films, all the latest Hollywood Pixar movies and, you know, Family and children repertory titles. We play those as well with regards to our food and beverage service. Yes, we do serve alcohol and we do have a strict policy when serving food and alcohol to make sure that everybody in the theater is accompanied by an adult.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. That's Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I've been doing a lot of research on the West Colfax corridor, and I know that the rates of poverty are extremely high as well as unemployment. So Mr. De Franzia referenced the hundred and 50 jobs that he hopes to create on the site. And for those who may be watching or in the audience whose ears perked up at the opportunity for some jobs in the site. Tracy. Ms.. Huggins, I was hoping you can explain the first source hiring policy.
Speaker 11: I would be happy to. Thank you for asking me to do exactly that. So any project that receives tax increment assistance through the urban redevelopment, through the Urban Renewal Authority, is required to comply with our first source hiring policy, which is a program that is designed to allow for the first opportunity to interview for any job that is created as a result of the project to be made available to low income Denver residents. So we work very closely with the Denver Housing Authority, who then works with the developers first source project coordinator to make sure that all of those job postings.
Speaker 4: Are are.
Speaker 11: Known and made available again from a first opportunity standpoint to low income Denver residents.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Do we have any other questions for 1099? Seen none. Public hearing on 299 is not closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. So we were talking earlier about how blighted the West Colfax corridor and how the condition of that street has been such for about 50 to 60 years. And currently on that street and I've spent a lot of time on that street, there is an incredible plethora of boarded up, abandoned buildings, vacant parking lots , payday lenders, tattoo parlors, more used car lots than you can shake a stick at. I don't know how many used cars one can buy in a year and a bunch of Route 66 era motels that definitely have seen better days. This, I believe, will be an exciting opportunity to revitalize this court. I'm very excited about this project. I know that. And Councilman Lopez and I talk about this a lot in north and west Denver, we lose so much of our tax dollars to shopping opportunities and Jeffco entertainment opportunities in Jeffco and other services, because so many of our residents travel to Jefferson County, to the Belmar area to receive things that we really want to see happening in Denver. I know that the few times I've gone to a movie when I have time, which is really rare, I've also driven to Belmar. So I'm excited about this opportunity because I think this gives a great, great chance for people who already live in our neighborhood to to to dine and have a craft beer and a scratch made meal and enjoy a great movie right in our neighborhood. And I can actually walk to this place I'm pretty excited about that might be a bit of a long walk, but I could walk. So I'm very excited about that. I'm excited about the fact that it's well-served by public transportation, such as the West Colfax Bus and also our new West Corridor light rail. And I am excited that yet another vacated lot, which is currently kind of a weeded out parking lot, will have the opportunity to be redeveloped into something that is really something that we can all be proud of. And I've had the opportunity to get to know the good folks from Alamo over the last year and have interacted with them as well as some of the nonprofits in our area. And, you know, thank you for already hosting a wonderful, very family oriented outdoor summer movie on the shores of Sloan's Lake last year. I can't remember the name of it, but it's pretty funny. And and to donate some of the proceeds from the sales of the concessions to one of our area nonprofits, and I know you've also already had some conversations with various community partners about what types of film festivals you might want to sponsor at that location. So I am excited about the revitalization opportunity. I'm excited about doing something for, you know, a really underutilized, blighted area on West Colfax quarter. I'm excited about the opportunity for some new jobs and and I'm excited about the way that you partner with the community. So I am very happy to support this tonight, and I would urge my colleagues to do so as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Just perfunctorily, I'm making the motions tonight, and I made the motion on this particular ordinance, but it is not something I personally support in committee. I asked whether the Littleton Alamo Drafthouse had received TIFF money, the tax increment financing money, and the answer was no. It was explained to me that it was a different business model. I've long said I support tax increment financing in some cases, but each proposal has to stand on its own merits. It is not, in my opinion, the taxpayer's responsibility to subsidize a movie theater and drafthouse. I do want to thank Dora for making all the information about their proposals accessible to me. To its credit, much of the of this Saint Anthony redevelopment does not require TIFF money, and I think that's very important. I was pleased for that. I'm also pleased that they were willing to let me take a peek at something very important to me. I've looked at the confidential financials for Alamo, and if projections are right long term, I believe this endeavor can make it without taxpayer subsidies. And so I'll be voting against this TIFF proposal.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Fides. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think a lot of what. Councilman Sheppard. Had expressed the same sentiments that I have along West Colfax. I think this is one of the first developments that are going to pop up that's really going to spur activity along West Colfax. Those of you who are familiar with the west side of the city, in the west side of the river, there's not much development out there. And, you know, Councilman is right and Councilman Shepard's right. You know, we do not have very many areas. We do not see blight and you do not see weeds growing instead of landscaped. Right. Always. You know, it's it's a good thing to see this happen. This neighborhood needs it. The it's not just about jobs. It's not just about economic development, but it's also about folks getting a return on their investment when they go to the bank and borrow against their home to send a kid. College should be worth something, right? They should have some equity, right? Folks on the west side of Denver should be able to have capital as well. Right. And that's what developments help do and that's what it helps spur. And I think this is one of those examples. It's long overdue. You know, West Colfax, you know, although you do have the the the old school motel motels, it does have that Route 66 flavor. That's where we that's not where I did. But I cruised federal back in the day. But before that, it was cool facts and you still have that. And we have to remember that in Denver that, yes, you have an East and West Colfax and whether it is certain amenities, you know, that come from the city that we are able to take care of on our own or things that we have to leverage active financing to make it happen, it's there. And, you know, my hat's off to the Alamo. You know, they came to us very early on to the community, actually. And at first, we were kind of a little weirded out because, you know, you cannot you can't bring in the name like the Alamo to a highly Chicano neighborhood. Man, that's a bad name, right? And so they said, no, no, no, no, no, it doesn't have anything to do with the Alamo. And I said it means tree, right? Poplar tree? Absolutely. Exactly. And so hopefully there's a lot of trees on that site, but it is going to help spur that that development. And, you know, it may not be one of those Elvis theaters that I went to as a kid over in southwest Denver. You drop you off, get in a fight, you know, come back home, pay it all. But you're laughing because you know it's true. But it is meeting a need in that area town. I like Bill Maher, but I wish Bill Maher was in Denver. Because if I had a choice. Nothing against Lakewood. Love Lakewood. It's nice Home Depot's down the street, but I'd rather go to the one in Denver. Why? Because it's important to invest in your own neighborhoods and in your own city. Because of the youths are our youth are going to be employed. There's a lot of folks that are going to be employed there. It's our side of the city and we need to invest in it. And so, you know, I would love to see development happen there that would keep people and keep dollars in Denver instead of taking it out. So, Councilman, this is going to be awesome and I do support this from moving forward.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Since Councilman Lopez mentioned East Colfax, thank you for reminding me there's a West End in East Colfax. I would like to just point out, I know it's not my colleague, Councilwoman Ford's favorite project, but all evening, as I've listened to this, I've been thinking about the Lowenstein Theater, a site that was vacant for 20 years on Colfax. And we've struggled. It was it was hard to redevelop. It was financially hard to redevelop. But just to give you an example, the key word to me in this proposal tonight in front of us is the word catalyst. That's the only TIFF project funding we did along Colfax. And since then, we've had two new grocery stores on East Colfax, a new Office Depot, a new liquor store, no tax increment in the liquor store. Many new businesses, including Stella, a restaurant that I think maybe came from that, the West, Northwest, Tiki Monk, Sassafras, also opening along Colfax. I could really go on in a very long list. So this is a hard site. We have people who came in willing to do the clean up, the planning, a lot of the entitlement work. But the risk of having this site sit vacant is a huge risk because of what else is on East Colfax. I will be supporting this tonight. Excuse me, what else is on West Colfax?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add my $0.02 here as well. I actually grew up in my high school years to the neighborhood just south of this. And it's been that long since we had not seen the kind of investment on the West Colfax corridor. I remember Councilman Garcia when he was the councilman of that area, working really hard to begin to see some revitalization of the West Colfax corridor. And Councilman Councilwoman Robb used the word catalyst. I was going to use the word anchor anchor tenant and that's what I see. The Alamo. As for the Colfax corridor, I sit on the board of a nonprofit that did the housing Colfax in Irving, and we've seen the city invest in that, as well as the new library that will soon be opening. We heard maybe sometime in February, the end of February. They also invested in the project at the West End, done by the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. So as we see the need for affordable housing in our city, we've seen some city investment in that. And we will see both market rate and some affordable housing as part of this St Anthony's redevelopment site. But all of that is bringing even more more bodies, more synergy to the community, as well as all of the residents that live both north and south of Colfax. I'm excited about having this theater on Colfax because it's a missing link for our community and the other type of investment that will be made, bringing in more restaurants and other things that I think will continue to help spur other investment along the West Colfax corridor. We've seen some of that happening with some city assistance. I think this project will help us see some of that happening just with private investment that will want to come and be part of this corridor. So I am happy to support both of these bills tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, any other comments? 1099 Scene on Madam Secretary, Roll call.
Speaker 4: SHEPHERD Hi, Susman. Brooks Hi. Brown I know. And each. Lehman Hi. Lopez Hi, Monteiro. Nevitt Hi, Ortega. Rob. All right, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Secretary, please. Those are the only announced results.
Speaker 4: 12. One day, 12 eyes.
Speaker 2: One day. 1099 has been placed on final consideration and does pass council. We need we now need to vote on Council Bill 1100, which will reach the panel bill that we postponed. Councilwoman Fox, would you please put council bill 1100 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1100 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. We need a second. It's been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 9: This is a companion bill and since I didn't support the main one, I'm not going to be supporting this money.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilman Shepherd, did you want to show?
Speaker 5: No further.
Speaker 0: Comment.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. In other comments on 1100, seen none. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 4: Shepherd Susman. Brooks Brown. Fox. No. Kenny Layman. Lopez. Monteiro, Nevitt. Ortega, Rob. All right, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the vote and announce the results. 1201 Nay Baba has won the council bill 1100 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are moving on to the next one, which is Council Bill 1047.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an Ordinance authorizing and approving an amendment to the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the Sloans Block 7 West Project and to Create the Sloans Block 7 West Sales Tax Increment Area
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves an amendment to the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloans Block 7 West Project in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-16-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01202015_14-1047
|
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the vote and announce the results. 1201 Nay Baba has won the council bill 1100 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are moving on to the next one, which is Council Bill 1047. Councilman Watts, will you please put 1047 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Certainly, Mr. President. I know the council bill 1047 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded council bills 1047, 1075 and 1076 all approved zoning map amendments. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and Council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become part of the record. The Council Bill for the Public Hearing for Council Bill 1047 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: So there we go. Thank you, Mr. President. And good evening, council members. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. This request for rezoning at 1555 and 1597, Stewart Street is located right next door to what we've been talking about for the past hour in Council District one in the West Colfax Statistical neighborhood. It's located on the west side of Stewart Street, all the way to Tennyson Street between Kansas Place and 16th Avenue. And it's directly across from the old St Anthony's parking garage. And Colfax Elementary is just to the south of it. And it's the L-shaped or the backwards L-shaped property indicated in the in the yellow dashed line. The property is a former religious assembly structure with attached school facilities, and the property owner is the one requesting rezoning tonight there requesting rezoning in order to facilitate redevelopment of the site and remove an old restrictive specific plan unit development. And our staff analysis is based on the rezoning and not any specific development project. They're requesting to rezone to the C three zone district in the Denver zoning code. The C stands for our urban center neighborhood context AMC's indicates that it's a mixed use zoned district and the three indicates the maximum height allowed in the district. In terms of number of stories, the property is sandwiched between two neighborhood contexts. To the east is the urban center see neighborhood context as their requesting and to the west is urban neighborhood U. Zone districts to the east are more intense. Mixed use districts to the West are less intense residential zone districts. And then all along Colfax are Main Street mixed use commercial zone districts. The current zoning is a plan. Unit development in the former Chapter 59 are known as the old zoning code number 559. It was established in 2004 and is based on the R-1 Residential Zone District, with the addition to allow the construction of a dormitory which otherwise wouldn't have been allowed in the r-1. In a very specific site development plan that I saw in just a second, it allows continuance of the existing school as well as that religious assembly sanctuary with some remodeling. But the detailed district plan included in the PD does not allow reconfiguration of the site. And so this slide really is the nuts and bolts of why they're here tonight. The this is a site plan out of the the plan, unit development zoning that exists for the property today. It acknowledges the existing school and the existing sanctuary at the southeast corner of the property, and it proposed a dormitory at the north end across a parking lot. Well, here they are today, and they recognize they no longer have a need for that sanctuary facility. The congregation that was here has long since moved. The school doesn't recognize that that that's a a use that they need for their school. And it's actually a more fitting site for their dormitory where it can be attached to the adjacent school rather than located across the parking lot. But again, under the current PD, this is all they can build. So the dormitory is currently off site, a few blocks to the east. They want to move it here and they want to move in that location adjacent to the existing school, but they can't under the current zoning, hence the request to rezone. Here's a look at the existing context around the property. The blue indicates the the school. So there's the school on the site as well as Colfax Elementary School just to the south. The hatching to the east is the parking garage and beyond is the the vacant property under redevelopment to the west and the shades of yellow are residential zoned districts. And then there's the pink commercial along Colfax. In terms of the building form in the scale of buildings, the site is is right in a transition from lower scale buildings to the west of one and two storey single family homes and some multifamily units further west, as indicated by the top graphic, that middle graphic shows the existing school site, 1 to 2 stories and scale. And then to the east is the parking garage. It's a four story building currently there in terms of process. This application was received and we were provided informational notice of receipt in September. On September 17th, 2014, it followed the regular schedule for rezoning. So there was a public hearing at the planning board on November 19th, which was properly noticed under the terms of the Denver Zoning Code, at which planning board recommended approval unanimously of this case. It went on to the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee who moved it out on December the fourth of 2014 to register. Neighborhood organizations have commented on this case, both of recommending support of the case. That's the West Colfax Association of Neighbors and the West Colfax Business Improvement District. And we received no other written comments on the case, and there was no one else has testified on the case. We reviewed it against the five rezoning criteria. And I'll I'll get to the salient points here real fast. First, the criterion for a rezoning is that it be consistent with adopted plans. So first, we have the citywide comprehensive plan 2000. There are a number of strategies and comp plan 2000 that address this rezoning, which staff feels that the application is consistent with in terms of promoting infill development. That is a quality that broadens the variety of compatible uses that are allowed and that promotes mixed use development, which allows people to live near work and retail and services and that they need in their daily lives. It also relates to the Comprehensive Plan 2000 strategies regarding recognizing the traditional ethnic ethnic neighborhood, which the school has been a part of for a long time, strengthening the positive attributes of our neighborhoods and then reviewing and updating city processes for zoning, this this rezoning, all of the old code and out of a putting into a standard zoned district. And the Denver zoning code is a is a great implementation of this land use strategy. And for those because of that, we find that the application is consistent with comp plan 2000. Turning to the blueprint, Denver, which is the city's land use and transportation plan adopted in 2002. This map shows the Blueprint Denver Plan Map. The pink color is the land use concept indicating that the site is has a mixed use land use concept which encourages a variety of uses, including employment and housing and services. Intensity is higher but can vary, and then the diagonal hatching across the site and to the east indicates that it's in an area of change. In our areas of change channel are areas where the city desires to channel growth, where it will be beneficial to the city, and where we should allow an appropriate mix of uses. Now again, the current PD limits, development limits the available uses on the site and doesn't implement these recommendations for Blueprint. Denver We do find that rezoning to a mixed use zone district would be more consistent with this blueprint. Denver Land Use Recommendation Blueprint. Denver also has recommendations regarding the street types, and here all four streets around the property are local streets. Blueprint Denver doesn't give a specific direction for local streets, but that lower volume designation makes rezoning to a low intensity, mixed use district appropriate. And here the applicants have selected the lowest intensity mixed use district in the urban center context, the three story zone districts. So again, we find it most appropriate. Then turning lastly to the West Colfax Plan adopted in 2006, even more specific plan, the West Colfax Plan had its own land use concept, which again is a pink color , and the property is shown here in the blue dashed line. That pink color stands for the town center and it's designed to be an activity center with mixed use retail, employment, housing, civic amenities like a school in the language of the plan, specifically calls for this town center to vary in scale where the greatest intensity should be . At the core, it should radiate to lower intensity at the fringe. Again, the sites are at the fringe and so rezoning to the lowest intensity mixed use district, a mixed use three story district is consistent with this plan direction. So having reviewed it against all of the plans, we find it consistent with that review criteria. It would maintain uniformity with the Cemex three zone district as applied throughout the city of Denver and through implementing their plans and is further detailed in your written staff report, we find that the rezoning would further the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Denver. The fourth criterion is that there be a justifying circumstance here to justify in circumstances that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area and recognize the change character of the area. There are a number of changes happening in this area, some of which you've heard earlier that we find provide a justifying circumstance for this rezoning, including the adoption of the West Colfax Plan and the new Denver zoning code in 2010, both of which have transpired since the time of this PD being adopted. There's been a lot of investment in the West Colfax area and the redevelopment of the Saint Anthony site are all changes occurring in the surrounding environs that provide a justifying circumstance for this rezoning. And then finally we review rezonings for consistency with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. The Urban Center Neighborhood context includes a regular pattern of blocks with consistent orientation and mixed uses in the X three zone district is as accurately applied to the site where we do have that kind of pattern of blocks and uses. And even more specifically, the Cemex three zone district is intended to apply to areas served primarily by local or collector streets, where a building scale of 1 to 3 stories is desired. So as I indicated earlier with Blueprint Denver indicating that these are local streets around this property, around this property, and with the scale of two and a half to three stories to the west, five stories and up to the east here, the Cemex three zone district is that perfect transition and it is also consistent with the intent of the zone district. So again, we find it consistent in having reviewed it against all five criteria. We recommend approval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Dalton. We have one speaker for this public hearing. And Rabbi Wasserman, you can make your way into the front pew and you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Aaron Wasserman, president and CEO of the Yeshiva, as well as a resident of the community for the last 42 years. I first wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Community Planning Development Department, as well as Councilwoman, Councilwoman Susan Shepherd and the rest of the City Council for their work and the recent years of the area, as we heard much of tonight. Grateful for that. It's certainly exciting to see all the transformations happening in our neighborhood. And we are thankful for all to all of you to help make this helped this process along. I am grateful as well as a resident watching this over many years, growing up in the community and seeing what's going to happen now, it's really amazing to watch. As you know, the Yeshivah has been a proud, active member of the Sloan's Lake community for the last 48 years. Since 1967, with activity happening in the area, the Civic sees the opportunity to reinvest in the neighborhood and and the community by renovating the Stewart Street campus and relocating our dormitory, as well as renovating our current facility, which will enhance the neighborhood as well. The look and feel as well for our students and our community. We believe connecting the dorm directly with the yeshiva will better be a better solution for our students by providing them security, as well as better connection to the existing school. Overall, we look forward to renewing and invigorating our presence in the community for next 50 years. And again, thank you to all of you and to the staff, the city council, staff and council for all the work that you have done. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers is now time for questions. Do we have any questions from members of the Council? Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a question for Mr. Dalton. Do you happen to know what year the PUD five, five, nine was passing.
Speaker 7: I think it was 2004.
Speaker 5: Okay. Would you consider it a detailed beauty?
Speaker 7: Yes, he has a boy. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: Would you call it a detailed beauty, sir?
Speaker 7: Yes. The former Chapter 59 didn't make the distinction the way the new code does between detailed in general, but it is a highly detailed beauty.
Speaker 5: Am I to understand that we are being asked to change this zoning tonight in order for the current or owner who I believe was the owner in 2004 to move the project from one side of his property, their property to another side.
Speaker 7: That is why they're requesting a reason.
Speaker 5: That's what I'm just asking you to confirm. Yeah. So in this case, what I'm. What I'm asking is. Well, actually, maybe I'll just leave it for the comments that that's my question. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Sherrod. Any other comments on 1047 seen on public hearing on 1047 is now closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I am definitely very happy to support this rezoning tonight. The reason why I was asking Mr. Dalton about the detail is because I think it exposes some of the issues that come up around a detailed pad when you get so specific and prescriptive about how a site may be developed that it doesn't leave flexibility for changing conditions, changing uses, changing broader implications, that can happen. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, that is why community planning and development has really been moving away from detailed Pwds is because in this case you have the owner of the property having to file for a rezoning just to move a project from one side of his property to another. And I find that problematic, you know, and so I think. That there are reasons. Some of which are quite valid for why we as a city are trying to move away from the DFL PD situation. So I applaud the recommendation of CPD. Thank you very much to the Orthodox Jewish community and to the Yeshiva for coming forward with this and I'm proud to support this tonight and wish you all the best. And I know the community is growing, so I'm here to help support you as I can. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other comments on 1047 C? None, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Shepherd. I susman. Brooks Brown. I thought I can eat lemon, i. Lopez Montero. Nevitt Ortega Ortega. Rob I Mr. President.
Speaker 0: II.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please for the voting and announce the results. 3939 1047 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are moving on to the next one. 1075. Councilwoman Fox, would you please put council Bill 1075 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
Rezones property at 1555 and 1597 Stuart Street from Former Chapter 59 PUD 559 to C-MX-3 (Commercial, Mixed Use, 3 stories) in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 1555 and 1597 Stuart Street from Former Chapter 59 PUD 559 to C-MX-3 (Commercial, Mixed Use, 3 stories) in Council District 1 (2014I-00050). A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-10-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01202015_14-1075
|
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please for the voting and announce the results. 3939 1047 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are moving on to the next one. 1075. Councilwoman Fox, would you please put council Bill 1075 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 1075, as amended, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. We need a second on the computers council members. It has been moved in. Seconded public hearing for council bill 1075 is now open. And may we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: I think so. Sorry. I just want to make sure I have the right show up. My name is Tina Axelrod. I'm a planning and development supervisor at CPD here tonight to present you a rezoning application for four 4625 West 50th Avenue from PD number to 73 to PDC 11. I quickly, quickly orient you to where the subject property is located. We take you from the city view showing that it's in the far northwest corner of the city. Little, little more honed in. It's in Council District one, Susan Shepard's district. It is just north of I-70 and west of Tennyson, surrounded virtually all sides by the Willis Coast Municipal Golf Course. It's in the Regis statistical neighborhood. But we often refer to the surrounding neighborhood jointly as the Berkeley radius. You can see both there on the on the neighborhood map. There is an aerial close up view of the subject property. The rezoning request in front of you today is for this 5.24 acre site. The current owner is the Eligible Shrine Association and on the property is their current association building, which was completed construction in 1930. You can see it there on the western side of the property and the rest of the area is vacant or surface parking lots. Currently, the property is being used as a fraternal club lodge for the Eligible Shrine Association and a special events center as well. The applicant on the rezoning application in front of you is the Shrine Preservations Partners, which is a limited liability partnership form to move forward with acquisition of the property based on whether the entitlement is approved in the proposal, in the rezoning application and is for a mix of single unit two unit and multi-unit residential redevelopment, including potential reuse of the existing shrine building. The current zoning again is a former Chapter 59 or old code pad number 273, and the request is to rezone into a Denver zoning code, put a new capacity. A general type of PD would be number 11 in our account. The current pad is is pretty restrictive, particularly in terms of use. It allows. It was adopted in 1989 pretty much just to freeze what was in place on the property. And that was to allow the club lodge use to continue and to expressly allow the rental, the facility to the general public for special events like weddings. And it has been used as such since then. There's also an allowance in the pad for accessory eating and drinking space within the existing training, building up to 20%. And there is actually a carbon cap cabernet cabaret license associated with the property and there is an active eating and drinking space within the building. The current pad does not allow any residential use of the property. It does require a minimum of 325 parking spaces, and it provides an access easement along Vrain Street, which is not a dedicated public street to properties to the north. There is a provision in the current PD. It's just a one line in the PDA that the southern facade of the existing shrine building must be maintained. The other existing zoning around the subject property to the north and east of the subject property, but west of Tennyson is an E as udc's zoning on those abutting couple of residential blocks. That's an urban edge single unit D as a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet. And the little X means that you have both. Both imply an urban house and a suburban house building form allowed. And of course the surrounding existing context in terms of zoning is our municipal golf course, which is zoned OSA open space a which just signifies it to city owned or maintained open space or in this case, a recreation facility. In terms of existing land use, I've described already what's occurring on the subject property adjacent in the surrounding neighborhoods. We've got, of course, the golf course and primarily single family in the blocks to the north and east of the subject site with a few scattered duplex uses, preexisting 1956 duplex uses in the neighborhood as well. In terms of building form and scale. There's a a picture of the existing eligible shrine building you see attached to the red arrow. It's the magnificent building if you haven't been out there to see it, hopefully you've looked at the pictures, but it's got that Moorish Spanish architecture with lots of of the 1928 1930 design still intact on that southern facade that you see there in the surrounding neighborhood. There are a variety of one, two, two and a half storey single family homes. The streets do not have sidewalks here. Mostly vehicle access is taken direct directly from the street. There's only there's there's no alley in the block where you see between Vrain and Utica, though, there are alleys on the block between Tennyson and Utica. They take a little bit of time to walk you through the the content of the proposed update. This is a fairly complex period and there's a lot of text in it. The PDA draft is in your package. It's the document that comes right after the staff report. The primary intent and bringing forward a plan unit, development zone district as described by the applicants in their application, was to preserve and facilitate the adaptive reuse of the existing shrine building. In addition to that circumstance, which is fairly unique and special on this property. The party was intended to account for and take advantage of some steep slopes that cut across the property from west to east. And the fact that sub sub area A is labeled on your screen doesn't have the regular pattern either of an urban edge , an urban neighborhood. It's a big super block. There are no public streets chopping it into what we would typically find in an urban edge, urban neighborhood of a rectangular blocks and lots with alleys. A bit of a challenge in figuring out how to have zoning work on that type of sort of area. The other intent of the pad is to achieve compatibility with those existing residential uses on frame and Utica to respect the golf course. As a neighbor, we don't get a lot of new development in Denver at this scale adjacent to a municipal golf course. And there were some concerns raised by parks in planning over what that edge should and would look like. So that's addressed by some special standards in the PAD as well that we don't typically see in our standard zoned districts. And then the desire to create some type of gateway in terms of form and use along 50th Avenue, which will be the the only vehicle access or the primary vehicle access into this site. The PD Zone District divides the 5.25 acres into three sub areas. Again, you see it there on your screen, Saberi, A, B and C. There are different standards attached to each of those sub areas. But overall, the PD does establish a total density cap of no more than 78 dwelling units across the entire PUD. So sub area A, B and C, no more than 78 dwelling units can be constructed and maintained. That includes anything that gets built inside the existing shrine building as well as on the grounds around it and what gets built in B and C walking through each of the sub areas and some of the highlights of the zoning for each sub area is the largest portion again where the existing shrine building sits almost neatly in the center. As you recall, for general pads, we tie our pads to a to the closest base. So base standard zoned district in the zoning code to try to move and frame the pad to be as close as possible to what we would we would require in a standard zone for a sub area, a the base zone district is the urh3a, which is an urban row home, two and a half storey maximum height. The A is for a special allowance for apartment forms that don't play out here. We chose the U r RH three for a variety of reasons. Probably the most important reason was to use the applicant wanted to establish multi-unit dwelling uses. They want to divide the existing building, hopefully someday into apartments or condos. That's a multi-unit dwelling use. You need at least a row home zone district to get that use. So we started with that. That row home zone is key to allowing the multi-unit to unit and it does allow single unit land uses. We use the real home building form from that base zone district and modified it to to make the existing trade building conforming to legalize the building form not just the, not the use inside of it, but just the building height and mass. There are some very detailed standards and I'm happy to answer questions that are in the PD zone district that preserve and maintain the integrity of the architectural features of the existing shrine building. And they are fairly detailed, they're fairly rigorous and probably most important, they you cannot demolish that building under the PD. You cannot voluntarily demolish the. Building. You can do some very limited edition additions to it on the back end, but those additions can't house dwelling units, they have to be very compatible with the rest of the building and you cannot add or alter the exterior of the southern third of the building, which has all that original rich detail still on it. Outside the existing building, the Sudbury A zoning standards essentially allow duplex buildings around subtree outside the building. It's a row house building form, but you can't have more than two structures per building. So it's a bit bulkier than a standard duplex form, but still only two units per structure. You could you can go three stories, but a long range street where that is where the existing context starts, you have to step back the mass of anything above 25 feet from the street. So you can't have a sheer wall. Three stories tall at the setback from frame. Sudbury, Abbey and Sudbury C are really part of the same block, existing block in the neighborhood. They're an extension of what's a pattern already established and which is continued through the day with some some changes. The suburb zoning is based on an urban edge single unit D one zoned district, which is the exact same zoned district as the zoning to the north, except that it allows accessory, dwelling, unit use and form. But even that's limited here. If you look at sub area B, there's the Pudi zoning would allow a minimum of 6000 square foot lots. You can you can get a maximum of six lots there. Of those six, you could only do adus on the Southern four. So you can't bump up an ADU form or use against the existing neighborhood. You sort of have to take a break for those two northern lots and then you can do 80 is through the concept site plan process and the review of the rezoning application. A few essentials were mapped out for the applicants in terms of public street improvements that would be required here. And one of them is to put in a new east west public alley, and you see the dotted yellow line on the screen between sub area B and sub area C. That indicates a requirement by the city of Denver for a new east west alley. This was part of an effort to not have this half of the block taken up with a lot of driveways and curb cuts. But to use the alley for rear access. So that's in the zoning as well. You were there won't be any curb cuts for front loaded garages or driveways. All the vehicle access will be from the rear of of new homes. Finally, in deference to a predominant building form in the neighborhood, any new single family home in sub area B has to have a pitched roof . That's a design standard that was added to the pad in deference to a more compatible architectural form that exists in the neighborhood. In sub area C, which is the end cap of the block. The base zone district is E2 C and the pad does some limited variations from that West 50th Avenue rather than rain or Utica becomes the primary street. So the homes will typically face 50th that similar to or actually the exact same condition that's found just to the east of Utica. There's a allowance for additional height to incentivize incentivized pitched roof buildings, but those pitch roofs are not required. Again, rear alley access will be required. We've done some tinkering of the design standards in the zoning to assure a more pedestrian friendly face on 50th by requiring the entrances to face 50th and not the off to the side. Finally, we've got some special design standards sprinkled throughout that apply in the various sub areas, mostly to address the edges between the golf course and the new development zone sub area A We have some heightened quality fence and wall design standards for any fence built along the public golf course boundary or between a building and the golf course. And we also have some special building specific rules of height to address a change in slope so that you can build multiple buildings on the super block and generally all have them the same height, even as your slope changes in sub area B and C, that continuation of the existing lot. There's some special height and landscaping and screening standards for the edges around the new alley to screen that alley and garage doors that might be visible as you're coming up and down rain in Utica and also in Sudbury, AC. We have some special heightened standards for fence and wall design with required landscaping to soften that edge where you transition from single family homes to duplex homes facing West 50th. That in a nutshell, is the content of the PD. Obviously, the PD has probably a lot more detail on it and again, happy to take questions. In terms of process, this has gone through the typical process. There's been quite a bit of back and forth between the neighborhood, the general public, the applicants and CPD over this PD prior to this city council hearing and after the neighborhood and Planning Committee meeting on December 10th, we got direction from the committee, we being the applicant, CPD and the neighbors to continue working on, covering and maybe gaining some greater consensus on some few outstanding issues, including the issue of density and greater compatibility. So I just want to note there were some changes since this has been in committee. For those of you who sit on the committee and to what's in the PD today, specifically what was added to the PD or changed in the PUD since the committee meeting on December 10th is the cap on total density of 78 dwelling units in sub area a surrounding the existing shrine building new homes can contain no more than two units per per building. That was a change since committee again to limit the density and in sub area a any expansion allowed the existing building. It was clarified that any bump out of that building cannot contain dwelling units. You can make a bump out or an expansion to add excess or common areas, but no dwelling units again to control the the potential for an ever expanding shrine building to to morph out across the site. Our review criteria. I'll walk through each hour briefly. We've got additional review criteria for a rezoning to a PD that you're familiar with. We'll also go through this tonight. First and foremost is consistency with adopted plans. There are two adopted plans that are in play here, a comprehensive plan, 2000 and Blueprint, Denver, which was adopted our adopted land use and transit transportation plan from 2000 to Comprehensive Plan 2000 provides a great set of general principles and strategies and objectives by which we can hold up this rezoning application and listed. There are a number of specific strategies that CPD has found. The rezoning is consistent and would further among them is that that important legacy strategy of preserving Denver's architectural and design legacies certainly that Gord is eligible. Shrine building is a legacy that this PD, as its cornerstone, seeks to preserve and facilitate, hopefully its adaptive reuse. In terms of housing strategies from the comp plan, this does offer an opportunity to introduce a greater variety of housing types, including the accessory dwelling units and a limited number, including more duplexes and multifamily units in a corner of northwestern Denver, where a lot of those options don't exist. In terms of promoting infill development services and infrastructures are available and adequate in place. The The Street Network will be improved by future development at the subject property according to minimum Denver Street and fire standards. And then land use strategy three be at the bottom. I want to point out it states to encourage quality infill development that's consistent with the character, the surrounding neighborhood that offers opportunities for increased density and more amenities and that broadens the variety of compatible uses. Again, CPD found that particularly in sub the efforts in sub areas B and C to craft the zoning that really extends what's already there on the rest of the block. But then to look at the opportunity, the unique site around the eligible shrine building, surrounded on all sides, not by existing homes, but by golf course. And that openness as an opportunity to introduce some increased density and offer a broadened or variety of housing types. In terms of blueprint, Denver, as you know, Blueprint Denver is comprised of a number of different parts. One of its component part is the future land use map. The future land use concept for the subject property was is a golf course. So in other words, the recommendation for future use for the eligible Shrine Association property is is golf course looking looking at this with 2020 hindsight and knowing a bit about how blueprint Denver was a higher level view of the city CBD really since early feels as where the recommendation was based on a mistake of fact that the eligible shrine property was part of the Willis Municipal Golf Course. It never was, never is. There are no intentions to acquire this property by the city of Denver. And certainly if we were to zone it to open space, that would be a taking. We didn't there's little guidance provided in that other than, you know, an interesting question mark and how how we got there. But it is in a designated area of stability and there are a lot of principles that come into play for reinvestment of redevelopment in a blueprint designated area stability. What I want to point out to you and Blueprint Denver, I know we haven't talked about this concept much in city council, but we we talked a lot about it in 2010. And area stability does not mean no change. Okay. It's not the opposite of an area of change. Blueprint Denver does very clearly anticipate reinvestment and some level of change in area stability, and it describes areas, areas of stability as being one of two types committed areas and reinvestment areas. A lot of what we see in areas of stability are committed areas. They're stable. There's a pattern is there? And the overriding direction the plan gives us is that any future infill and redevelopment should be compatible and consistent with the existing pattern of land use and scale. And certainly that's what our zoning does for the most part in our areas of stability. But Blueprint Denver also very clearly note that even in state and I'm quoting Blueprint and even in stable residential areas, there are often areas that would benefit from change. These areas due to their lack of reinvestment, have a negative visual impact on the surrounding areas. Blueprint goes on to describe these types of areas as reinvestment areas, and reinvestment areas, according to Blueprint, are places where it's desirable to maintain their character. But it is also beneficial to support reinvestment through, quote, modest infill and redevelopment or major projects in small areas. Many Denver neighborhoods, as we look around, contain that are stable, contain both committed and reinvestment areas. And Blueprint acknowledges this now doesn't provide us a huge amount of detailed guidance as to what a major project could look like in a reinvestment area. But this pad is in front of you to suggest what a major project could look like in a reinvestment area on this unique peninsula of land, in an area otherwise area stability. We see this as an opportunity area as well to implement blueprint and comp plan policies in regard to introducing those housing types I just talked about. And an opportunity for for some increase in density to take advantage of the site and to enable the preservation of the existing building. And some CPD has found in as detailed much more greatly in my staff report, CPD finds that the proposed PDE zoning is consistent with adopted plans. As also reported in the staff report. We find that the proposed zoning would result in uniformity of district regulations and further the public health, safety and welfare in terms of the existence of justifying circumstances. CPD finds that this criteria is met due to changes on the unique site, really social and economic changes that has made this institutional use, which has been there since 1928 to 1930, just no longer viable for the eligible Shrine Association to maintain this larger facility for its original institutional use. It leaves a zoning in place that was really there specifically to enable that institutional use and nothing else. And we feel that with the change in time and demand and the drop in membership for this type of use, there's a need to change the zoning, to acknowledge the changing conditions around this type of use generally and around this property specifically. And the consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent has really picked up in the additional review criteria for PD. The first is whether the proposed zoning is consistent with the intent and purpose of PD, and that's spelled out in Article nine of the Denver Zoning Code. Essentially, a PD, as is, is justified or could be appropriate, where you're seeking more flexibility to respond to unique and extraordinary circumstances, and where in return for that flexibility, there are some significant public benefits that arise out of the PUD zoning. So in this case specifically, CPD has recognized the presence of unique and extraordinary circumstances. Obviously the existing eligible shrine building is at the is really the objective fact that makes particularly sub area a unique and special, but so does its geography. Surrounded by a golf course as well as the change in slope across of an over three acre parcel. These are not going to be divided into smaller zone lots. It's got to be treated as a whole. So there's some need for flexibility in the way the zoning should work here. Also to accommodate some of the needed street improvements resulted in the need for some flexibility in what would otherwise perhaps be standard zoning applied here. The whoever develops this will have to widen Vrain, Utica and West 50th Avenue to our minimum local street standard and improve it, which with curb gutter paving sidewalk tree lawn. And as a result, there's some eating up of what would otherwise be developable land area and some flexibility requested in return for the public improvements of some reduction and minimum lot with. So that's the type of flexibility in response to those circumstances. In terms of the quid pro quo and what the city of Denver gets out of flexibility and custom zoning with a PD, the significant public public benefits, obviously the mandated preservation of the entire eligible building, which is not something you typically see in a zoning ordinance, but which we negotiated in this case in the city's interest to see that building preserved. It does enable easier reuse of the shrine building while ensuring compliance with minimum architectural design standards and guidelines. Other public benefits include introducing at a fairly moderate scale more diverse housing choices, including the ADU, some limited number of apartment or condo units in the existing building, and duplexes where some exist in the Greater Berkeley Regis neighborhood, but not a lot exemplary pedestrian connections, amenities and considerations that comes into play with the siting of new homes in this development very sensitively to the golf course, not turning backs or building eight foot walls or putting the vehicle drive access abutting up against the golf course where flipping it so the homes present a friendlier face, whether it's backside or front side to the golf course, and then still resulting in a public benefit of compatible development patterns with nearby areas, particularly for the sub areas B and C and assuring in the PD that that is still a benefit. Finally, the remainder of the review criteria for compliance with division nine six standards and criteria have been and have all been addressed through the peu de development is not feasible under any other zone district and would require an unreasonable number of variances or waivers and conditions. CPD as fact finds that the multiple deviations in this party would result if we tried to craft them around a standard zone district and a lot of variance request or a lot of waivers and conditions. At that tipping point, a PED becomes a much more obvious zoning choice. CPD also finds that permitted uses in the PD are compatible with adjacent existing land uses, particularly in some areas B and C as a committed area. The single unit and duplex uses play well with what is existing in the surrounding blocks. The introduction of duplex and some limited multi-unit uses and sub area a are there to to add the density to facilitate the rehab and re-use of the existing shrine building and are compatible with what's immediately surrounding it, which is the golf course. Finally, permitted building forms are compatible with adjacent building forms or are may compatible through appropriate transitions. And through my previous description of all the PD standards, CPD finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with this criteria as well and some. And thanks for your indulgence and a longer than usual presentation. CPD recommends approval at the PD.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Kiran. All right. So we've got 22 speakers signed up for this. And so I'm going to say the first five and please make your way up to the pew so that we can try to make this as efficiently as possible. Bill Schwartz, Steve Childs, Glen Sibley, Charles Buck and Jeff Laws. So you five can make your way to the front pew. And Mr. Schwartz, you can go ahead and begin your remarks.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, members of Council, thank you first for staying so late to hear us out on this matter. I come to you as as the Treasurer of the Eligible Shrine Association, as the train, as a Shriners. I find myself in a very ironic situation standing in City Hall City-County building, asking for a rezoning to facilitate the sale of a building so that we remain financially solvent as an organization that was founded in 1887 in the Old City Hall down at 14th and Larimer. I look around this room and I see the preservation that has done and been done in a building that was built and broke ground in 1929 as our building was completed in 1929. I look around this room and I feel ashamed at what could be had we preserved our building to the best of our ability. However, I stand here also inspired by what can be when we reuse and repurpose our building. We feel that. We can be inspired by the people who have come to us to attempt to purchase our property. We had multiple offers on our property and we had the opportunity to hand select our buyers as people who are connected to the fraternity, as some of them have fathers or other family members who have been Shriners in the past. One of the purchasers of our building, his uncle, was a potentate of our fraternity in 1908. Our potentate is the equivalent of a president and most organizations. So we stand inspired by some people that are wanting to purchase a building that is a financial challenge. It has been a financial challenge for many years, as those of you who have been to it can see over the past several years, we have attempted to supplement our income to keep the property afloat by holding more events at our at our building. Unfortunately, those events have not proven to be profitable enough for us to be able to maintain the building at our current membership levels. Some of you have even attended events at our building and you have seen how large our events can grow inside of our building and the traffic problem that it can create. Once those events let out, what we are here today to do is we are here today to ask for your approval of PD g 11 so that the Shriners can move on gracefully to a new facility. Somebody with a vision and the means can come in to save this historical treasure and redevelop this property and commit resources into it that will eventually give back to the city and county of Denver. These resources, as CPD has stated in their staff report, will create infrastructure. They will add sidewalks and tree lines so that it becomes more pedestrian friendly. For those who have been out there, you know that west of 50th there are no sidewalks. This will add sidewalks so it becomes more pedestrian friendly. It will also add investment back into an area that has frankly been neglected by the Shriners for a number of years. Thank you for your time. I appreciate you staying late. Apologize.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Schwarz. Steve Childs and Mr. Childs, someone has allocated 3 minutes to you, so you have a total of 6 minutes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, members of City Council. My name is Steve Childs. My address is four six South Street, Denver, Colorado, and I am a member of the Shrine Preservation Partners CO Applicant.
Speaker 2: With the.
Speaker 0: Eligible Shrine Association. We are pleased to ask for your support for the beauty and proposed rezoning with the changes Tino Axelrod has outlined. I would like to focus my remarks on three important topics one process and the interaction with our neighbors. Two concessions we have made to ensure neighborhood content, context and tree preservation in the iconic shrine building. With respect to the process, we have worked hard to be sensitive to the neighbors and their concerns. We have held multiple public meetings, three design charrette, countless individual discussions with all of our interested neighbors. Starting in March of last year, prior to submitting an application for rezoning. We hosted three town hall style meetings in addition to these large meetings we have had. We've also met with smaller working groups to modify the proposed rezoning on as many as six occasions. Why I am why am I belaboring this? Because anyone who suggests to you tonight that this rezoning has been hastily pushed through or not enough attention has been paid to neighborhood concerns, is simply not being truthful. Majority of the neighbors either support or neutral on the zoning rezoning. Supporters include every neighbor who lives directly across the street from the site and who will be directly impacted. Mostly along and mostly mostly along 50th Avenue. Who have offered support or remained neutral. With respect to changes to ensure compatibility and context, we have agreed to substantial changes to what was originally envisioned for redevelopment of this infill parcel . Originally, we envisioned multistory, pedestal style retirement apartments or condos for the site. But after meeting with several neighbors, we realized that there was no support for this. By our own calculation, we have reduced density from what was originally envisioned by over 150%. Importantly, before this bill was filed for city council considerations, we responded to our neighbors requests and agreed to the following one. A hard cap of 78 units across the entire site parcels A, B and C and the shrine building itself to no expansion to the shrine. Building itself on the exterior walls for four additional living units. Three. Only after a single family. And two. And only single family and duplex lofts can be built outside the shrine building. So that's only two buildings to a form. You may hear from some tonight that this rezoning allows too much density on a portion of the site. Those same people have made it clear to us that they prefer to see a shrine building torn down and only single family homes built on the site. The Shriners. My partners and I all disagree with this approach and prefer this and prefer the approach to preserves the shrine building and adds homes in and around it. No one can deny or hide the fact the parcel is not a precise replica of the nearby neighborhood pattern. In essence, it cannot be. The shrine itself makes PASSO a nonconforming with the neighborhood. In order to save and repurpose the shrine, more density is necessary and appropriate and appropriate. Parcel A has no immediate neighbors is surrounded on three sides by a golf course, sits below and away from the existing homes and has a massive looming building sitting in the middle of it. The duplex house for whom we have committed to will complement the shrine and prevent the row house canyons. The some of the neighbors have described as offensive. Please also note that we purposely designed parcels B and C to serve as a visual transition or buffer to the more dense parcel a. Beyond density. We made other significant concessions to address the concerns expressed by the neighborhood traffic due to the neighborhood concerns about traffic. We agreed to Alley Road and South Park. All housing in this development. We will also limit we will eliminate traffic down these dead end streets such as Utica and brain. No home will have street facing driveways or more ever. Even the city engineers did not require. We recommended we commission a traffic study to analyze traffic impacts. Our traffic engineer, charles buck of f h you is here tonight to address any questions you may have of him with regard to design guidelines. We have met, discussed and developed consensus guidelines with our neighbors that specify enduring and quality architecture and construction to match the neighborhood in order to put these guidelines into effect. We will restrict the deed.
Speaker 2: When the property is conveyed.
Speaker 0: To us. That deed restriction will establish an archway or metro district which which will become the enforcement mechanism for architectural guidelines. Importantly, this process will ensure the guidelines run with the land and are applicable not only to us, but every future owner of the property. I also want to point out that many other important design features requested by the neighbors are already embedded in the PUD requirements for incentives for pitched roof homes, landscaping, fencing requirements, setbacks to minimize sightlines to garages, limits on a number of units per building structure, height and massing limits, setbacks and that and unique bass baseplate, measurements and rear loaded garages. When combined with the design guidelines, these elements ensure that vertical development is compatible with and enhancement to Northwest Denver.
Speaker 2: Mr. Childs, your 6 minutes is up. Thank you. Next is Glenn Sibley.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. President. Council members. My name is Glen Sibley. I address 2825 East Alameda in Denver. I'm a Denver native and my father grew up within blocks of the shrine building. I'm here to talk to you about the preservation of the shrine itself. The preservation and repurposing of this type of building is never easy. Conversion from an assembly hall to other uses. It's difficult by any standard. The eligible shrine has unfortunately outlived its usefulness. And. Is not cheaply or easily converted. I'd like to commend you to the language of the preservation language that's contained in the. Because it's very restrictive and prescriptive about what should be done to allow residential flats, either condos or apartments to be built within the shrine building. Preservation and repurposing is the smartest way, in our opinion, to preserve the historical buildings that become available for redevelopment. Historic designations are important, too, but often those provide a trap that leaves a vacant building, not reusable. For any other purpose. Once this rezoning is approved, we will begin in earnest to analyze the shrine and what is necessary to convert it to residential uses. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of this rezoning as it is the very best and only way to ensure another 100 years for the shrine. I'd also like to take a moment to read a letter that was prepared by Charlie Wyllie, the CEO of St Charles Town Company, with whom we've been working on the historic matters regarding this paddy. As I am regrettably unable to attend tonight's meeting of the Denver City Council, I am writing this letter to communicate Saint Charles Town Company's support for the proposed zoning of the eligible redevelopment in Northwest Denver. Over the past several months, Saint Charles has worked closely with Sheraton Preservation Partners on a development plan for the redevelopment of the eligible shrine and surrounding property based on the proposed zoning. Saint Charles has extensive experience in repurposing historic structures, including numerous preservation projects in the city of Denver over the past 20 plus years. We have a thorough understanding of the preservation covenants requirements in the proposed PUD and strongly support them on behalf of Saint Charles Town Company. I strongly urge the Council's support of the proposed zoning and of this important project so that we might continue to apply our historic preservation expertize in the redevelopment of this property. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Sibley. Charles Buck.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Charles back. I'm a traffic engineer with Helzberg Holten Olivier. I was hired by the applicant to do some limited traffic analysis for this proposed development. I'm just really here to answer questions, so I'll be available for that. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Next is Jeff Laws. And as Jeff Laws comes up, I'm going to call the next five to the front pew. So those people who spoke, you all can go back to your original seats, Jim. So, Amy, I apologize for mispronounce that. David Ramirez, Philip House, Karen Harris and George Marino. And as those five are coming up, you may go home again.
Speaker 0: My name is Jeff Laws. I live at 5086 Vrain Street. I'm not an immediate neighbor, but I'm one house away. And I would also like to point out, as Mr. Lim simply stated, that all the neighbors are within three or 400 feet. So while there may be a couple of neighbors that are directly across the property that support it, there at least at least two that are immediately adjacent, that object. Our concerns are three in this case. And we would ask that you either take these concerns in consideration and tabled this motion for further work or decline it tonight . The first concern we have is the preservation of the shrine. Shrine preservation partners trust but verify. When we got the planning board, we figured out that there was no language in the original PDS that had anything that would require the shrine to be preserved. It was sent back. To make sure that language could be constructed. And we now have language that says if the shrine is preserved, it must be done thus and so. However, if you read it carefully, there is nothing in there that says that it has to be preserved. We already have one white elephant in my neighborhood. It's called the Ilitch Theater. Often like the Lowenstein Theater, it was talked about for years about being preserved. In fact, it was part of a Peabody, but it sits empty and vacant today. Unless there is language inside the page requiring that actually be re utilized. We could end up with a white elephant at the shrine. Our second concern is that the density of the RH units in Zone A surrounding the shrine is completely unknown. This is because we do not have a site plan. It seems to me that any development proposal would be carefully considered with a site plan, and we have asked often and many times, why do we do not have a site plan? We're always told that this will happen later. Unfortunately happening later means that the public and this council has no input on what that site plan looks like. And so we actually know how many units we do not know how many units are h outside the shrine and how many units are condo apartments inside the shrine. That is a huge unknown. And we think that it should be a part of this pretty. The third issue that we would like to bring to your attention is design guidelines. Now, these fellows purport to say that they have a design guideline form that they have developed with input from the neighbors. The input from the neighbors consists of one set. Of documents that was given to them by our neighbor, Esther Kettering, and their original draft letter on what that might look like. The neighborhood has never agreed to the design guidelines and I'm finished. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Laws. Jim. And I can't say how to pronounce your last name, so I'll say thumbing.
Speaker 0: There goes Jim. Thumbing. Mr. President. Mr. President, members of the council. My name is Jim Thome and I live at 12. Excuse me, 1176 South Jackson Street. I am here. I am a member of eligible. But actually, I am also a practicing residential real estate broker. I have been in central denver for 40 years. The peu de approval process that you have before you allows a very significant infill site in denver that is basically a parking lot surrounding a wonderful old building that can no longer realistically be maintained to the style that the shrine would love to have it maintain and have this you d redevelop the entire site all at the same time. The density is appropriate for what is in demand in the city and county of Denver right now and what is desired by the people that want to find a home in the city and county of Denver but don't have many choices to find one. This move, this change of zoning, will move parking lots to residential taxpaying property. It will complete the access to one of Denver's premier golf courses with one of the neatest clubhouses there is. And it will influence the neighborhood in a way that over time will be positive. That will raise the bar for changes that invariably come to different neighborhoods over time, and it will allow it all to be done within a very short period of time, as opposed to piecemeal, like so many of the neighborhoods. Bonnie Brae, Cherry Creek. I was I showed the very first duplex built on Fillmore in Cherry Creek North when people said, What's that? And now Cherry Creek North is no, it's interesting, but it's a hodgepodge of design that is no longer a neighborhood for Denver residents. It's a lot of out-of-towners. And this is creating a neighborhood for new residents to come and find their home here in the city and county. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Domingue. David Ramirez.
Speaker 0: Collective forgiveness here is gathering her comments more in line with Mr. Law than I'll follow up with her.
Speaker 2: Well, we don't want to change the order, but if you want to if you want to not give comments, that's fine.
Speaker 0: If you want to make a comment. But I think her comments more along with Mr. Laws and my comment would be more appropriate following her not understand.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, we can't change the order. So you have the opportunity to speak. You can speak right now.
Speaker 0: Not a problem. Afternoon. Good evening, members of council. I'm a homeowner on the 5000 block of Utica at 5055 Utica. I resided on this block for 25 years and have lived in North Denver for 50 years. I've raised four children on this block who've attended neighborhood schools. I'm a retired district court judge in Denver. Prior to that, I was a county court judge in Denver, and my career started in the city of Denver as an assistant city attorney, where I supervise the prosecution and code enforcement division for the city. Since 2008, I've been employed as a hearing officer for the Department of Community Planning and Development. I have heard a variety of cases involving the Denver zoning and building code. Given an entire career interpreting the code, I've had the opportunity to preside over many cases involving the code in 30 years with city government. I have gained some knowledge and experience with the code, including zoning and building in my orders. There are three constants. One Make sure the law is correct as it applies to the facts to protect and consider the public health, safety and welfare of the community. And three, do no harm to the community. In my 30 years as a judge and now as a hearing officer for the department, I have been reversed a handful of times, including one of six actions to the District Court in hearing the cases. I find on average that the city is correct in its interpretation of the code. However, in many instances the department is wrong. Based on my experience with the city. It's clear that the development under the existing code is not justified. It's not consistent, and in my opinion, may not be legal. And I respectfully request that it either be denied, amended or delayed pending further review of all factors noted by my neighbors, including Mr. Laws and Ms.. Harrison. I'm grateful for having the opportunity to work for the city and county of Denver for the past 30 years. My career, like my home, is very special. Our neighborhood is unique given its location and bordering Woolas case golf course. It is a neighborhood that should be visited in person and not viewed on a map, a diagram, drawing or slides. It's important to note that 50th Avenue is the only access street to the area. All other streets are dead end. Even 50 of dead ends. Every street in their dead ends except 50th on the outside at Tennyson. Changing the width of the street will do nothing. They all will dead end after the fact. Currently there are events at the golf course and the Shriners Temple, and traffic is a public safety issue. Emergency vehicles have no quick access to the area. Imagine a 5 to 10 foot increase of the residential units given the same street, same street. Conflict of figuration and accessibility.
Speaker 2: Mr. Ramirez, I apologize. Your 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 0: That's fine. No problem. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Next is Phillip House.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. And city council people. My name is Phil Hawes. I'm a property owner in the city and county of Denver. 4444 Morrison Road. But I'm also a longtime member of the Shrine. I've been a Shriner for 38 years, and I have watched the membership grow from when I joined of 13,000 members down to 1300 members. As you get older, your family moves away, you find that your house is too big. That is where we're at now. If we don't do that, the boards will go up on the windows and it'll sit there and be another Ilitch Gardens. So I encourage and I recommend that the city council look at this to redevelop this property with the developers. We've looked long and hard and worked with this developer, and I think that they will do what's right in the neighborhood. With that, I encourage you to support the passage of this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Hawes. Next is Karen Harris. Ms.. Harris, you have 6 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 12: My name is Karen Harris. I live at 5090 Utica. In addition to being a neighbor affected by this project, I am an architect who has been on both sides of the process of rezoning. I am probably committing professional suicide with this testimony. However, the process I have been involved in here is broken, and the result is a document that is flawed in many of the ways good urban planning and a predictable zoning code should guard against. I hope you had the opportunity to read the neighborhood report that was distributed last week. We know that it varies drastically from the analysis of CPD in speaking to the need to change the entire process. A difference in observations and interpretations contained in these two documents illustrates just one of the many problems with the proper process. There needs to be a transparent and well-defined public process that is moderated by a neutral party familiar with the Denver Zoning Code and the neighborhood. A neighborhood context and character report should be the initial basis of the entire process, not something that a neighborhood should have to find the resources to develop will have to defect when there are vastly different interpretations of existing conditions. There needs to be some defined mediation process to reconcile context before moving forward. Public meetings should not be run by the applicant, with only the applicant presenting information and supposed facts. The first draft of the code should not be written without CPD staff having visited the neighborhood. The peu de which becomes official zoning laws should be written by the city, not the applicant, and the city should be the entity that answers all questions of the zoning form and measurement. It should be up to the city, not the neighbors, to understand the zoning code and to insist on limited and necessary modifications and waivers to its provisions. It should not be the neighbors who must figure out that a preservation buddy has no preservation language in it, and that the applicants probably intended it that way. It should not be up to the neighbors to request that applicant planning board testimony be horrified as the Denver Zoning Code says it shall. Only to be told that the city is just fine with unlimited numbers of units built on a property with no open space and no other mitigating constraints. Up until right before this idea was introduced to the Planning Board. There was general agreement with the site plans and the project renderings that were being presented and a certain level of trust and good faith which created a reasonably civil discourse regarding this request for major rezoning. However, the applicant's refusal to supply or to supply. To simply right into the P. What they had promised and presented to the public has become a mystery as to the contents of the g 11 as written. Subquery is B and C may be sufficiently divine to assure the neighborhood and the city of what can be built. Although in hindsight, there was absolutely no reason to have that area included in the Pew D. Simply rezoning that area, with no exceptions, would have provided the consistency and the predictability D we seek, and it would have met the goal of state of stated in the Denver zoning code to limit unnecessary p pds and to the extent possible to to strive to get closer to the existing seven districts. Sub area a however, is a very different story. Not only is what is written in the yard a complete departure from the base zone district that is supposed to mimic it is contrary to the very premise of form based zoning code and within the super block it excuse excuse the basic urban design standards that are so valued elsewhere in the city, including front loaded garages on new private drives through sub area A with three stories and no setback on the facades with the surprise amendment of total units on the entire, would we have at least gone from infinity to a number? However, without a number certain of units outside this shrine building on sub area a it is still possible within the party to create a super block that is nothing but roofs, asphalt, concrete with no pedestrian connections, no street activation, and no transparent transparency. And in spite of the rhetoric induced that inducing two unit rowhouses changes things because there is no limit to how close they can be together. It does almost nothing to change the scenario. HQ unit rowhouse is not a duplex form. If it were, we could get rid of about 50% of the Denver zoning code. It allows. The only thing it does is it allowed to mark these as duplexes without the pesky requirements of creating a code compliant duplex form with the surrounding open space they require. If the idea of a beauty is to take a unique and extra extraordinary situation and create zoning that is predictable and consistent with the zoning parameters in the rest of the city and the Denver zoning code. This would fails to accomplish that task. At the very least, it needs an amendment to limit the number of units on some area outside of the shrine building. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr.. Next is Jordan Moreno. And as Mr. Moreno comes up, I'm going to call on the next five. You can make your way to the front pew. Esther Kettering. Michael Hicks, Robert Schmitt, Dominic Lovely and Mark Brissenden. So you five can make your way up to the front pew. And Mr. Moreno, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, members of the Council, my name is George Moreno. My wife and myself have lived at 3428 Westcott place for more than 20 years. We're both Denver natives. I'm a retired Denver public school teacher. I'm also a member of the shrine. I am pleased to be here tonight to strongly urge your vote to pass this PUD and rezoning for the shrine building and property. As many of you know, the eligible Shriners have a long and rich history in Denver. They have a substantial philanthropic presence in Denver for over 125 years. This redevelopment project is about preserving the rich history of the area while making a very positive economic impact to the Berkeley Regis neighborhood. And on a greater scale, the city of Denver. To take this thought a step further, the Berkeley Regis United Neighbors defines the Regis portion of their association as I-70 to 52nd Avenue and federal to Sheridan. Within this area, you will find single family homes, duplexes and even some row homes on Lowell. You might hear some in opposition speak to context as just their two streets as a limitation to the neighborhood. However, I feel that we should use the precedents from the Neighborhood Association of the already mentioned boundaries. We understand the importance of balancing the interests of everyone, which is why the development team agreed to design guidelines, limited density and did a traffic review to make sure that this development would ultimately fit into the context of this neighborhood. Some may suggest tonight that the entire neighborhood opposes this rezoning. However, this is not accurate. The most glaring example of this is that most of the neighbors on 50th Avenue who will be impacted the most by this project have written letters of support and or will speak in support tonight. Moreover, the residents that look directly west across the parking lot who may lose their mountain views have written letters of support and or will speak tonight. The density being requested at 78 for approximately six acres of land constitutes a small residential infill and is a significant reduction from the original proposal of approximately 250. The final density is less than one third the original plan. This is a significant compromise on behalf of the applicant and fits in nicely to the character of the Regis neighborhood. Pdg 11 reflects more than a year and a half of work by the Shriners and Shrine Preservation Partners, LLC. It is time to approve this Pudi and allow the Shriners to move gracefully to their new home and repurpose and reuse the beautiful shrine building again. I strongly urge your yes vote on this PUD and rezoning. Thank you for all that you do on behalf of all the residents of the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Marino. Esther Kettering.
Speaker 10: My name is Chester.
Speaker 5: Kettering and I live at 52 Utica Street. I am a commercial real estate broker and land developer.
Speaker 10: I have been involved with development.
Speaker 6: And sales of land for 38 years.
Speaker 12: Having developed and sold as a principal.
Speaker 10: Well over 12,000 acres.
Speaker 6: At least 2000 single family home sites.
Speaker 5: Several multifamily.
Speaker 6: Projects, at least three major industrial parks and many other projects, including a golf course.
Speaker 4: Never.
Speaker 10: In my.
Speaker 9: Entire career.
Speaker 10: Have I.
Speaker 6: Seen such a major change in density introduced into a stable.
Speaker 5: Predominantly single.
Speaker 6: Family neighborhood.
Speaker 10: With so little detail required.
Speaker 6: During the approval process? This, especially when site plan approval.
Speaker 10: Is simply.
Speaker 11: Administrative.
Speaker 6: Planning is intended to create predictability and to.
Speaker 9: Ensure a.
Speaker 12: Specific.
Speaker 5: Outcome.
Speaker 6: We as neighbors have virtually no assurance of any specific results from the proposed project except density. As to design guidelines.
Speaker 5: In our.
Speaker 6: Frequent communications with the developer. They produced a rather amusing set of documents that referred to things like Cape Cod style Moorish Spanish.
Speaker 10: Influences.
Speaker 6: That. Was almost.
Speaker 5: Comical.
Speaker 11: In an effort.
Speaker 6: To inspire a better quality design.
Speaker 11: Guideline effort.
Speaker 6: I produced some suggested language from projects I've developed in the past. Thinking that.
Speaker 10: This would inspire a better.
Speaker 6: Product. Alas, they simply copied some of the information verbatim in hammered it in to what they had already done. It's a far cry from the design guidelines that we had hoped for.
Speaker 10: It was better, however, than what they produced.
Speaker 6: As to.
Speaker 5: The neighborhood.
Speaker 6: Our density.
Speaker 5: Between Lowell and.
Speaker 6: Sheridan. I 70 and 52nd is under four due per acre and they are proposing 16. I respectfully request counsel, deny approval of this project and recommend re.
Speaker 12: Submittal.
Speaker 6: By applicant of a detailed PUD.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Kettering. Michael Hicks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. And council members. My name is Michael Hicks. I live at 23 one South Jackson Street, and I was approached by an architect to actually speak against this. After due diligence, I could conscious cannot speak against this. This group is doing the right thing. I've been to this hall. I was at an anniversary, 50th anniversary for my wife's uncle. And I will tell you, the Nietos and Guerrero's throw a heck of a party service. It was cold and the dance floor was full of beautiful Latinas. So it was something I didn't want to leave. I had a difficult time finding the eligible and I had a difficult time leaving the eligible for other reasons. But I will tell you, these guys have done the right thing. This developer has worked with the neighborhood. They have created a good process. They have also brought in some of the best people, the Davis Partnership Architects. It's an architectural legacy in Denver. Charlie Wooley, the equitable building, the officers quarters at Lowry, one of the best historical developers in Denver. They've done the right thing, and every time they listen and make concessions, this cheese gets moved. How long is a piece of string? How are we going to develop and infill our neighborhoods if we can't have good developers come in and have a process and a dialog with the groups surrounding the development? Denver deserves housing. This is a housing infill site. This fits with this neighborhood. This makes this neighborhood complete. I encourage you to pass this, to approve this, to do the right thing. Denver is on a dangerous path. In San Francisco, sometimes it takes ten years to buy a piece of property and developer. And do you know what it costs to rent an apartment in San Francisco? Or buy a home. This can't happen in Denver. You have to approve this development. They've done the right thing. They're good people. On a personal note, Councilman Brown, I know you're going to miss these hearings. So when you're done and your term is up on Monday night, you walk that couple of blocks to my house. We'll open a bottle of red wine and we'll watch Channel eight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Miss. Thank you, Mrs. Robert Smith.
Speaker 0: My name is Robert Schmid. I reside at 58 Utica Street in Denver, Colorado, adjacent to the eligible shrine property. Besides being a resident of that neighborhood, I'm also an architect and I am the past chair of Air Denver's Zoning Code Task Force during the discussions and work up to the implementation of our new zoning code. Members of Denver City Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight about this important matter. My email to you all on January 16th outlines my concerns with adopting this podium. Those concerns exist on three levels a disregard of blueprint, Denver community planning and development, support of a flawed PWD document and creating a precedent that is destructive to Denver's established residential neighborhoods. First and foremost, this application asks for the establishment of a pad that would cause a development that is out of character with the existing neighborhood. The map on page 21 of Blueprint Denver 2002 notes The Berkeley Regis neighborhood is an area of stability. The plan strategy on Plan 20 on page 23 of that document notes, quote, Preserving and revitalizing neighborhood character has been a prevailing concern throughout the planning process. The need to direct and manage the location type intensity of future development is balanced by an equally strong desire to preserve those areas of the city with an established character, unquote . It is further stated that area of stability phases two concerns character preservation and reinvestment. Although it is recognized that the Shrine property will be redeveloped, that redevelopment cannot damage or alter the context and physical fabric of an established neighborhood. My January 16th email also endorses the Green Utica 50th Street Neighborhood Report, which is in response to CBD Staff Report of 25 2014. Preparing and publishing this report was necessary in light of CPD's mismanagement of this matter throughout the entire public process. You have heard it tonight and from some who don't live anywhere near this site to one extent or another as to neighborhood support of this PD, making it seem that the applicant has addressed and satisfied concerns of the neighbors. Let's, however, be clear about the aspect of acceptance in one way or another, at one level or another, regardless of the depth of desire to preserve the existing shrine building in whole or in part. A majority of the neighbors oppose this PUD as written. Anyone coming before you saying anything differently is not being truthful with you. Besides the immediacy of this project's impact on my neighborhood, adoption of this PUD will set a dangerous precedent for future development in Denver that could occur in any of your districts to any of your established residential neighborhoods. I urge you to consider your vote tonight and vote not to adopt this PD. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. Dominique. Lovely.
Speaker 0: I'm Dominic. Lovely. I live at 5000 Tennyson, probably the corner that is going to be most affected by the traffic of this redevelopment. But I do lend my support to the redevelopment. Currently, I have reviewed the traffic study that was put in place. That was my initial concern was how is it going to affect me and my neighbors on 50th and Tennyson? I didn't find the traffic study to be overwhelming, an overwhelming increase in traffic, especially when I look at, you know, all the traffic lights coming at me from sorry, all the car lights coming at me when the big events let out of trainers. Now, I'm also a fan of urban density and moreover, I'm a fan of considered urban density. I'm a fourth generation North Denver resident, and I think everybody should have the opportunity to live in this neighborhood. I have two young children who go to or who will be going to Centennial in the future. Centennial is a Title One funded school, and I look forward to knocking on every door of the 75 residents that will be there to help us improve the neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Lovely. Next is Mark Brissenden. And before Mr. President speaks, I'll call up the remaining speakers Kristy Drum.
Speaker 0: Ellen Metter, Marv Greiner, Julie Eck.
Speaker 2: Jim Tarrant, Jeff Seaman and Sandy Schramm. So you can make your way up to the front pew. And Mr. Burson, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. My name is Mark Brissenden. I live at 45, 38. We're now in the court, so I'm not an immediate neighbor to the shrine. I live about a half mile south on the other side of Berkeley Park. And when I first heard about this project, I guess it was the density I was worried about. So I started looking at the neighborhood. The block I live on has about 25 or 30 units to the one block that's both sides of the street. And so I looked at some of the other areas. The most adjacent area to the shrine, which is the block between Tennyson and Utica, is actually less dense than that. It only has about 17 units, judging by Google Maps anyway. Now this project would be in an area that's just slightly larger than one city block, so the density there is going to be more than 60 units per block. So that's about three times what that adjacent block between Utica and Tennyson would be. And I think that's that's just too high considering that a zoning zoning should be trying to keep the neighborhood keeping the character of the neighborhood. And also, I don't think it's a good site for that kind of of very high density because of the fact that there's only the one road going in and out. It seems like there will inevitably be big traffic jams there at rush hour. And one other concern I have with the project is that there's no mention of trying to save the ballroom, which in my opinion is really the most historically meaningful part of the entire shrine. And he would I know it's probably not possible to say that, but it would be nice to have a plan that did that. So I would urge you to not grant the the rezoning now, but try and get one that has a density that's more in keeping with the neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Brisson. And next is Christy Drumm.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'm Christy Drumm.
Speaker 6: I live at 4435 West 50th Avenue, which is right at the corner of Utica and 50th.
Speaker 10: So every day when I look out my windows.
Speaker 6: I will see this new development.
Speaker 4: I share my neighbors.
Speaker 6: Concerns about the.
Speaker 4: Density. But the way I.
Speaker 6: Understand the process is.
Speaker 5: The pad.
Speaker 6: Is one step. And following this, the next step is the final.
Speaker 4: Site.
Speaker 6: Design, layout, approval and discussion, and that we will have the opportunity to have discussions and provide input. So as such, I support this, Peggy.
Speaker 1: And hope we can move forward.
Speaker 6: To those more detailed discussions. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Ellen Metter.
Speaker 0: I live in the Berkeley neighborhood and I do welcome new neighbors and investment in our neighborhood. I'm excited to see changes, growth and improvements in our neighborhood, which is in part unique for its blocks of older homes and yards and many now being rehabilitated. It's a very cool neighborhood. You got to come see it if you haven't been there.
Speaker 4: The number of units now being proposed is.
Speaker 0: Out of character for this neighborhood and reflects a much higher density.
Speaker 12: I feel that the density proposed for this development.
Speaker 0: Should be decreased.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next is Marv Greiner. No. Mr. Greiner. Okay. Next is Julie EK.
Speaker 5: I'm Juliet. At 2301 Blake Street, I'm with Davis Partnership Architects, and I'm here to answer any questions that may be technically.
Speaker 4: Involved in the PD.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next is Jim.
Speaker 0: Charette. My wife, Sandy Schranz. She's yielding her time to me. My name is Jim Strand. I have lived at 5036 Utica Street, adjacent to eligible Temple for 69 years, including 40 years of teaching at North High School. Our family has lived on the Hill for over 100 years. My grandfather, a founding member of Eligible, sold them this beautiful property for their shrine in 1925. Even though I've lived next to the shrine longer than any of my neighbors, I share some of the same concerns.
Speaker 2: I just want to apologize for interrupting, but just want to verify the account. The Secretary 3 minutes was not yielded to you so you don't have six. You only have three. So I just want to make sure you're.
Speaker 0: Aware of that. No problem. Go right ahead. Appreciate that. I feel like I'm back in the classroom. As I was saying, I share some of the same fears that my neighbors have had concerning the changes this product will bring to our quiet little neighborhood. In spite of these fears, we all need to accept three simple facts. One The shrine is committed to selling this property as they move to a new location. Two. This site will see new constructions soon. And three, the population of our neighborhood will increase. The only remaining question to us as a neighborhood is who will be responsible for carrying out this project and how will this be accomplished? This is where I feel very comfortable and confident in giving my support to this project as proposed by the Shrine Preservation Partners. This group represents our best chance for a sound, quality redevelopment of this unique property. This group has met with the neighbors many times. They have been very upfront with their plans and they've been very accommodating about making countless changes as relates to our wishes for this project. To date, 44 letters of support have been presented. I cannot imagine any other redevelopment group that would have been so willing to listen to us and then make changes to accommodate our wishes. As have the shrine partners. Therefore, my wife Sandy and I wholeheartedly support this over this overall plan for our neighborhood. Thank all of you. For the effort you put forth not only tonight, but every Monday night and throughout the week. And thank you for your vote of support for this project.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shrimp. Next is Jeff Seaman.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, members of council, I'm Jeff Seaman. I'm legal counsel to the developer applicant. And I'm here for questions only. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And our last speaker, Sandy Schramm. No. All right. We had 21 speakers. All right. That concludes our speakers, this time for questions from members of council. Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Hey, Mike. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to. Is Steve Charles still in here? I think you're one of the only speakers that didn't get you. Probably want to bring your notes.
Speaker 2: Because I want you to read that last.
Speaker 7: Page as you didn't get a chance to read. You're one of the only speakers. Didn't get a chance to finish up, I think.
Speaker 0: So I just wanted to hear your last testimony. Did you? I'm sorry. You wanted me to read the last email. Yeah, whatever. You didn't finish reading that picture.
Speaker 2: I think where we left off was a.
Speaker 0: Design guideline, so we got down to the shrine preservation. I think the preservation of the shrine. So indeed we have preservation language in this part which will ensure the historic shrine building is repurposed and usable for residential purposes, while at the same time preserving and restoring the unique and ornamental portions of the building original since 1930 and as bill drawings which are included in the piece. This flexible language affords us or allows us to enhance and improve the building to ensure that the Shrine Long remains an architectural icon of northwest Denver. Charles Boyer reports that the letter was proffered earlier this evening so for us was not able to be with us today. But we believe this reflects the changes needed to ensure the best use of the infill parcel which will allow us to repurpose the Shrine Temple for the next 100 plus years while at the same time improving and blending the property with the existing homes and neighborhood. There is no question that the restrictions in the property will ensure the redevelopment fits the context of the existing neighborhood. We remain committed to working and communicating with our neighbors as this process continues forward in the site plan review process on behalf of the African of Shrine Preservation Partners and our Coalition to the Eligible Shrine Association, we thank you for your consideration and urge your support for this rezoning.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Was Councilmember.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next, Councilwoman.
Speaker 0: Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I have several questions. And so I know there are other people that do. So let me try to just plow through them. First of all, I want to thank everybody for your patience in sitting through the previous meetings and for being here tonight so we can hear all perspectives on this issue. My first question, I believe, would probably be best directed to Tina Axelrod. So why, Tina, if you can tell me, why does this application have two separate sub areas, B and C?
Speaker 6: It actually has three.
Speaker 10: No, I know. But on that side of. I understand that. But why are those two two separate as opposed to one zone lot, for example.
Speaker 6: Two.
Speaker 10: I mean, this is a PDF. It's different than, you know, the traditional form based zoning that we now have.
Speaker 6: Really to align those different portions of the of the block with a standard zone district that aligned better with the with the proposed use primarily. There was a distinction between the two sub areas between wanting and allowing just single family in Sudbury to be versus allowing single family and duplex in Sudbury, SC So it's easier just to draw a line, create a sub area and make that distinction in use between the two primarily.
Speaker 10: Okay. My other question for you is about the the the traffic issue. The one road in there is a project similar to this. And this is the old mail well envelope company down by Cornerback Park. I believe that project had the zoning so it didn't come before this body to be able to be to allow the kind of density that exists there. Do you know how many units are on that particular development?
Speaker 6: I do not.
Speaker 10: Come to one. Monteiro, I know this is your district. Do you know how many are on that site?
Speaker 5: You think there's over 400?
Speaker 10: Okay. And that's one road in and out of that site. Okay. I was just trying to sort of understand that issue of traffic flow, if you will, on the land to the west of the site. Is. Wonder the the drawings that have been presented to CPD does that is that where parking for the eligible building is supposed to be? Where were they supposed to park that building.
Speaker 6: Under a future development or redevelopment?
Speaker 10: Under the redevelopment efforts being.
Speaker 6: Whatever gets developed and sub area A, the western portion of the PD has.
Speaker 10: To park it.
Speaker 6: So has to park itself within sub area according to the minimum parking requirements of the Denver zoning code.
Speaker 10: And the primary location to do that is on the West Side, correct? That's where the land is.
Speaker 6: If it could be if they were to do just surface parking. Yes. I understand there's capacity actually inside the shrine building to fit some structured parking as well. But that will be up to whatever specific development proposal we get. Generally got to park it to the minimum and it's got to be within the boundary, a sub area.
Speaker 10: Okay. So one of the challenges I'm having having been around when we did lots of different pwds is that we would normally this body would normally see a greater level of detail with a PUD application.
Speaker 6: Which is under the former Chapter 59. That's true.
Speaker 10: Right. And and so, I mean, I'm I'm understanding some of the uneasiness that some of the residents have with the lack of specificity of knowing exactly what's where. So one of the questions I have is how many units are going to be and how many units will be on sub area be and how many will be on on C?
Speaker 6: Can you we can theoretically answer that question. The easiest answers are in Sudbury, A, B and C, because given the proposed paddy zoning. Members. Sub Area B because of the minimum zone. Lot size of 6000 square feet generally. Okay. You could you could fit you could only get six zone lots. Maximum in sub area be single family is allowed so you can get six single family homes. You could also do for a separate dwelling unit. So in theory you can do up to a maximum of 12 or ten. Yeah, I can add six plus four equals ten in sub area B, that would be the maximum theoretical allowed. In Sudbury, AC, you also have a minimum 5500 square foot zone lot. You can get a maximum of above a five zone lots with the duplex use allowed. That's a theoretical maximum of ten units. So just in Siberia, B and C talking theoretically, if you're to max out your zoning entitlement, you could add six plus ten primary units plus four accessory dwelling units.
Speaker 10: So then that assumes the balance of that goes into.
Speaker 6: A then the balance, if you were to max out A and B leaves you with 58 units to be built in A, now there's nothing in the PDA that says you shall max out B and C, but theoretically, that's one 1 to 1 scenario.
Speaker 10: Councilman. I'll yield to others who have questions and then if you can just put me in the queue to turn back. Certainly. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I have two questions. I'm going to start with Tina. First is, you know, there's a lot of concern about there not being enough design guidelines. But I wanted to just check with you. You said something very interesting during your presentation that there was a requirement for pitched roofs. Yes. How many zone districts or pads are you aware of where we require pitched roofs?
Speaker 6: I can certainly answer. And in regard to the standard zone districts of similar residential none. So that is a design standard unique that was added to this particular pad just for sub area B for those houses to be built on the zone. Lots closest to the existing 13 or 14 houses on that block.
Speaker 4: Got it.
Speaker 1: Another question that I heard was that there's nothing in the Pudi that requires any pedestrian access or infrastructure that you could have a super block of just structures and concrete. Can you speak to that?
Speaker 6: Yes, I can. We have site development standards that are found in the Denver zoning code as well as public works. Minimum standards for private access drives. And they would come into play. So definitely there will be sidewalks on West 50th as it gets improved through this project. So from Utica into sub area A that will be local street would sidewalks on at least the northern side that's under the that half of the public right of way is within the control of this development. There will be a private access drive to get into the interior or sub area a you need to have something there . It's not going to be a local street. But, you know, at a very conceptual level, public works and fire have looked at this and have said, yes, we'll need essentially a loop road to create a you to get through an around the existing building into the if you're going to put houses right up against the golf course , we need to be able to reach them. And that that would be a 20 foot wide driveway, paved travel way, plus a five foot attached walkway. There are also standards in the Denver zoning code for providing pedestrian connections through the site, particularly from Vrain and Utica. We have pedestrian entry requirements for all the residential buildings. That requires essentially a front door facing West 50th and rain and internally doors facing the private drive. Now, I think, to be fair, there's no maximum building coverage in some area like you would see in a single unit zone development on a single lot. Typically, there's a 37 and a half maximum building coverage on a 50 by 125 foot lot or a 6000 square foot lot. We don't have that in the Rowe home zone districts. So theoretically, yeah, you can build a lot of building, but by virtue of requiring the roads, the walkways, the utilities, there is a minimum spacing between buildings not in the zoning code but in the building code. That's generally a minimum of ten feet between buildings. You can't. Cover 100% of Sudbury, a land that you see today with building. Can it be a lot of hard surfaces while between building walkways, a private drive? Yes, but you're surrounded on three sides by green and open space. And everyone. Not every maybe not every unit will have direct access, but many of them will be looped around and accessing through their back door, front door, visually and around the edge.
Speaker 1: Mark Excellent. And then I have just one more question, Mr. President, with your forbearance. All right. So I heard the question about not requiring any preservation. And, you know, I went to the pub. So I want to just read to you a couple of the things that I see in the pub and make sure that I'm reading them correctly. So I'm in section 4.1.1, which is page six of 29 for council members. So subsection one says the exterior shall be retained. Subsection two says existing exterior design features and elements original shall be preserved and maintained. Subsection four says. Alterations shall not result in the voluntary demolition of the structure or cause damage or alterations other than those allowed. And there are some sections where things are allowed, such as removal of things that were added to the building later in time, you know, things like that. So I just I'm confused. So to me, when I read those three statements, it seems very clear that the language shall, shall be retained, shall be preserved, shall not remove, shall not demolish. So are you aware of any limitations to this language that I'm missing? Is there another section of the document that somehow says, no, not really. I mean, what what do you think that concern is coming from?
Speaker 6: I agree with your read of the PD that there is an an absolute requirement that the building be preserved and maintain. Now, it doesn't require and nowhere in our zoning does it require an owner or developer to take proactive action to rehabilitate it and reuse it. We don't require that in any of our zoning. We don't even require that in our landmark ordinance. The landmark ordinance has similar language you must preserve and maintain in good repair, not essentially let it fall into what's the word neglect and or let it deteriorate. Similar kind of bar out. Even though we're not landmarking the structure through the zoning, we're creating a minimum standard of minimum preservation. And so I don't. There's nothing else in the party that would take away from what you read. And yet and yes, there is nothing that proactively requires somebody to do something with this building. Once you start in, then everything comes into play in the zoning as to what's the ladder and not allow as to exterior alterations. They have a lot more freedom to do things inside.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Those are my question.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Next, Councilwoman Shephard.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you. Council president. So my first question was actually the one that councilman can each just asked and had answered. So that one's out of the way. The second thing is, I really want to go back to this discussion of areas of stability, committed areas versus areas of reinvestment. And I've learned a lot more about this during the discussion of this particular rezoning. So, Tina, if you could just go over once again the area like how an area of reinvestment is different than a committed area in an area of stability.
Speaker 6: Can I run and get my copy of Blueprint Denver?
Speaker 5: Please do.
Speaker 0: Oh, shit.
Speaker 6: Okay. I'm sure you all have this under your chairs, right? Okay. So, blueprint ever adopted land use plan? Now you can see I use it like other doctors. There's a number of areas where area stability as described generally. I'm I'm saying to you from chapter seven, which is called Areas of stability in areas of change. A lot of what Blueprint really focuses on and is what happens in areas of change. Granted, you know, in the overall scheme of the plan, there's there's a lot less detail perhaps about areas of stability, but there's still a robust discussion about areas of stability versus areas of change. Again, Blueprint says areas of stability is includes the vast majority of Denver, primarily the stable residential neighborhoods and their associated commercial areas where limited change is expected during the next 20 years. Right from Blueprint. The goal for the areas of stability is to identify and maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. And then there's a section on page 122 that talks about the types of areas of stability. That's what the heading is called. And it says While residents of many parts of Denver want to maintain the character of their neighborhoods, these predominantly residential areas do not have all similar characteristics. The areas of stability can be thought of as belonging predominantly to one of the following two categories committed areas and reinvestment areas. So committed areas are stable neighborhoods that may benefit from the stabilizing effects of minor infill development rather than large scale major redevelopment. For example, reinvestment in the Washington Park neighborhood is not necessary to improve its character. Tools appropriate for this neighborhood seek primarily to maintain present character and to motivate modest redevelopment of selected areas such as commercial corridors or neighborhood centers. Infrastructure, which is generally adequate, needs to be maintained. That's the general description of committed areas. They still face many different challenges. These committed areas, for example, some neighborhoods have primarily concerned about the transitions or lack of transitions between commercial and residential areas. Some neighborhoods are focused on traffic issues. Other neighborhoods are more concerned about replacement housing that has a design incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. The challenge in these latter neighborhoods is to preserve character without preventing residents from upgrading their homes to meet contemporary standards. That's the end of the description of committed areas and Blueprint Denver on page 122. Then it goes into a description of reinvestment areas, reinvestment areas or neighborhoods with a character that is desirable to maintain, but that would benefit from reinvestment through modest infill and redevelopment or major projects in a small area. These areas would encourage investment, but in a more limited and targeted way than in areas of change. Residents in these areas face a variety of challenges and opportunities. Examples of challenges include concern about deteriorated and poorly maintained housing stock, inappropriate land uses, or inadequate buffering between uses, lack of services, lack of curbs and gutters and other infrastructure and maintaining affordable housing. Opportunities for improvement in reinvestment areas can also vary widely. Examples include redeeming vacant land for a neighborhood park or redevelopment. Redeveloping underutilized land to provide needed services. Blueprint Denver, however, does not identify specifically committed areas or reinvestment areas. Tools are provided in this plan for both approaches. The appropriate tools for each neighborhood can be selected to deal with a single issue or multiple issues through a small planning process, for example. In fact, many neighborhoods contain a mix of these types of committed and reinvestment areas and will not cleanly fit into the into either of these approaches. That's my reading to you.
Speaker 4: Not mapped.
Speaker 6: It's not map. No.
Speaker 5: It's something that is determined. How like.
Speaker 6: Ideally.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 6: E a for a planning process.
Speaker 5: Through a site like.
Speaker 6: For example, through a small area plan. So you've seen a number of small area plans come before you in the last few months. And those are essentially taking a closer look from the Blueprint 30,000 level of areas that change their ability to start breaking down into smaller, more to the ground level of where change should occur and what that change should look like even within an area stability. Here, we're presented with an application for a change in zoning to a small area, five and a quarter acres within a larger neighborhood, Regis or Regis, Berkeley. And being asked to consider whether reinvestment of the type enabled by this zoning is appropriate.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you for that very detailed response.
Speaker 2: Be good counsel. Thank you. All right. Next, we have Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I had a question for each side. First of all, was it Mr. Sibley who read the letter from Mr. Wooley? Who was that?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 9: Is as Mr. Sibley still here?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 9: If you could come to the microphone. I have two questions on this issue. First, I'm a little confused about how Mr. Wooley fits into all this. Is he going to be the developer?
Speaker 0: Mr. Wally has helped us and guided us in this process, and he may or may not be the developer of the developer of the shrine itself.
Speaker 9: Okay, then I do have a second question. Has there ever been discussion of any type with any suggestion of ways to access public money for this development?
Speaker 0: No, we have not.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And is Mr. Ramirez still here? No, no, no. Then I am going to just pose this question to the people who were who were in opposition, because it was very curious to me, although people can claim this all the time, I really wanted to know what the rationale was in Mr. Ramirez comment about his comment that he felt that this period could be illegal. And I wanted a legal explanation of why he thought it would be illegal. Is there anyone who could speak for him in his rationale?
Speaker 2: Hmm.
Speaker 9: And let's move on.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Rob. Councilman Brown tried to chime in, but his name didn't pop up as okay if I put him in.
Speaker 4: I'm happy to yield.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, Councilman Brown.
Speaker 0: I'm in trouble now, Bill. Couple of questions on the your is a reminder to my colleagues Bill Schwartz was the first speaker tonight. How long was this property? How long was it put on the market? And was it listed with a realtor? How was it sold is what I'm getting at. It never hit the it never hit the market. We had three answer unsolicited offers within a matter of two weeks. And it was, you know, for the two by four to the forehead that said, hey, there are people interested in this property. And we evaluated all three offers and chose who we chose for the reasons. So the word got out, obviously. Absolutely. It's a it's an iconic property. So just as soon as they heard the shrines for sale, we I fielded a number of calls from realtor since then. Commercial realtors. What is the stacks tax status that you were five or would three see? We're not a5a1 seat three. We're what we are a51c ten domestic fraternal corporation. However, the building is held by a5a1 seat two, which is a property holding company for a domestic fraternal corporation. All right, let's get right to it. Are you paying property taxes? No. We have not paid property taxes since we bought the property in 1924. So we can talk about change and that will be a change. That will be a very large change. We welcome that change in terms of taxes, I can assure you. What happens if this fails tonight? What are the the plans of your organization? The plan is to scramble like mad. We have we've scrambled for the past three years. We've had additional events held at our facility over the past three years to attempt to supplement. We have failed miserably at that. We're a fraternity that operates a philanthropy. We're not event managers and we're not facility managers. And it's very sad to say, but we've lost about $300,000 over three years trying to operate this facility and trying to maintain it. It's just not working anymore. We just financially cannot continue to bleed that kind of money. And finally, of the three prospective buyers, why this outfit? The first one came to us and he had a very vague plan and he made actually a higher offer with a 30 day cash close. And he said we asked him what he wanted to do with it and he said, I think I'm going to live in it. And to us, we've been very good stewards of our properties in the past there at 18th and Sherman, which is still a is known as the eligible mosque. That was our first building. And now this property, we've been very good stewards of our property and we did not want to dump the neighbors with a person that we didn't understand their own plan. We didn't know what their intentions were. We didn't want to just take the money and run. We've been invested in this neighborhood since 1924. So that, combined with the connection of the three folks that we chose, are all Denver natives. One, they've graduated from high school here. They've spent a lot of time here, not to mention the connection. One of them, his uncle, was the president of our organization in 1908. And the other two, they have family members and fathers who were Shriners. And so that personal connection that we have, shrine family, what we would consider shrine family involved in the and the redevelopment of our building gave us a warm enough feeling that we chose to go with them rather than more money. Interesting. Do you guys have a secret handshake, Ernie? We might have a great answer for the walls of the old city hall to talk, huh? Well, thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Next is Councilwoman Rob Bell.
Speaker 4: Typically, this is going to be very boring after Councilman Brown's questions. This is really basic. But I want to understand some Area B and I don't know Tina or Steve or Glen who wants to answer this. But some area B, you got that alley running east. West is the one right next to the homes. How do you access a rear garage or do those houses that I assume face the street have curb cuts?
Speaker 6: The PD and sub area B does the zoning does require a vehicle access from the rear of the zone lot. So it's either got to be from a public alley or not not the rear. I'm sorry. Let me try to strike that. Let me answer. The zoning requires for sub area B that vehicle access be taken from either a public alley or a private access drive, and it cannot be directly from Raine or Utica.
Speaker 4: So there there might also be a North-South drive.
Speaker 6: Exactly.
Speaker 4: Yeah. That dead ends.
Speaker 6: It'll be a private driveway, essentially. That's what the zoning backs you into.
Speaker 4: And so the reason I ask is so all of the those are the single family lots. Correct. All of those will face either rain or Utica.
Speaker 6: Correct.
Speaker 4: Okay. I didn't realize there was that much width there, but. Okay, I got that. Then I wanted to go back to the design guidelines. And Juliette, did Davis partnership write the design guidelines? They did not.
Speaker 2: Could you come to the podium, please?
Speaker 4: Because I know, at least with one of the developers at ninth and Colorado Davis was working on the way we worked on that was we were.
Speaker 5: Not hired to work on the design guidelines for this project. The three partners.
Speaker 4: Worked up with that on those guidelines. And and so Tina, why aren't these design guidelines in the PUD? As Robin said, the pitched roofs, there are things that address design in the PWD, but these particular design guidelines.
Speaker 6: Well, typically, as as council members might be aware, we don't get to the level of detail of architectural style which we understand and qual and minimum quality materials for residential buildings. In our zoning, we haven't treaded into that territory. And so it felt more like the domain of design guidelines. And you know, in those design guidelines typically are done outside the zoning code. Sometimes we do for large reinvestment or redevelopment areas. You know, draft city required design standards or guidelines. But that's typically because there's guidance specifically in a plan or guiding document like a GDP or a small area plan to get us to design guidelines. We didn't really have that call here for something above and beyond what the zoning would require in terms of building form and massing and scaling beyond what we took. We've put in the in the pad so we didn't feel a need for city adopted design standards.
Speaker 4: I appreciate the difficulty. If you go back to the old style PD pre new Denver zoning code, sometimes we did write materials in it and then there still was such a broad range. We got something called Don't in Colorado, but I'm commenting, I'm just trying to I had another question along that line. Could someone from the project talk to me about the design guides guidelines and give me some specific because we don't have a copy of them here. I hear they're to be recorded after the transaction. And I, I really I heard some comments that weren't positive about them. So I'm curious. Well, what's in them that's.
Speaker 0: Are we we. Crafted design guidelines to be relatively simple and straightforward. Ms.. Kettering commented on those, and she was correct in saying that we inserted her comment to our design guidelines verbatim into those design guidelines. We have suggested that we, prior to putting those in place, will continue to work on those. I would agree with the comment that while they're not perfect, they're our best effort to get something done that made sense to us and preserves the. Character of the neighborhood by prescribing materials and building forms and the like. That makes sense. But in looking at, for instance, the Denver Tech Center guidelines, which go close to 100 pages, I think we did not become that prescriptive.
Speaker 4: Yes, some landmark neighborhoods have guidelines, residential landmark areas, and I would hope there'd be a little bit like that trying to match materials to what's there. But while I have you there, Glenn, in terms of working with Charlestown Company on the restoration renovation of the Shrine, have have you discussed grants from the Historical Foundation? Historic tax credits, both of which would require some level of designation.
Speaker 0: We have discussed that we haven't made any applications as we don't own the property yet.
Speaker 4: And does that still remain a possibility?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Charlie has given us good guidance on that, that that is possible. We have not assumed that that would occur because we can't really make that assumption going in. But we we're going to explore those opportunities thoroughly.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then, Mr. President, if I could just continue, because it sort of addresses things I've read or that were said tonight. This is for Tina. Thank you. Oh, Mr. Sibley. One of the letters I read just today talked about why do we why are we using the Urban Rowhouse District as a model in Area A? I should have looked this up before I came. Do we have an Edge Rowhouse District? You know, I think of the townhomes along Mayfair Park, which is in sort of an edge area.
Speaker 6: We have an edge town townhouse zone district. Do we have an edge? I'm looking at a fellow colleague because I can't I don't have the book and I can't remember. Is there an edge row home? No.
Speaker 4: An edge has a townhouse. Different townhouse.
Speaker 6: The townhouse building for is different from the townhouse was more suburban form it. It tends to allow garage facing primary facade, you know garage doors on the primary street facing facade. And that's probably the key distinguishing factor. It still requires an individual entry to each unit. So it is attached to single family attached. But that's the primary difference is that's a little shorter.
Speaker 4: That's helpful. And I'll address that in my comments. And then finally, you limited the you RH to two units in Area A, but is Garden Court still a form allowed and how can a garden court have only two units?
Speaker 6: You can still have a garden court. It would just be it would likely be surrounded by more than two duplex structures, if you can imagine, you know, maybe you would have had a row of six units in a row, six units facing a court if you broke up.
Speaker 4: I see two, two to 2 to 2.
Speaker 6: You can still do a garden court.
Speaker 4: Okay. I know those are all technical, but it really gets to how the technical things address that concerns. So thanks. Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I was also curious about the Urban Rowhouse Zone District and how that differed in some areas. And I'm glad I'm glad that you asked that question. Councilman Robb. One of the questions, and I think I may have missed it in your comments and this is from Bill from the Shriners. I'm curious, the gentleman talked about the Latinas in there dancing and having a good I've spent a lot of time community events. You had a lot of local artists come from all over the place doing things like that. I know it gets packed at times and there's a lot of traffic in the neighborhood. And then you do have a lot of you know, sometimes it's a small event, sometimes a huge event. And I've been there for both. When how often do you have those had those big events and how many cars show up estimated that are parked either on the property in the lot or even in an adjacent street?
Speaker 0: I can tell you that over the past year we had approximately seven events that went over 600 people. And if you take a look at what our building is actually approved by the fire marshal for its 1485 people. However, our current PD 273 only requires 325 spots. So you do the math real quick. 1485 people allowed in the building, 300 spots for cars to park. So the rest of the cars spill out into rain. Utica, 50th across Tennyson. We've actually had people as far away as about a half mile last year, aka mechanical held of a company conference there. And every single one of their people, I think, drives a company owned vehicle. And we had about 800 of their employees there. And so we had about 675 cars everywhere, and they walked from the neighborhood and they're very intrusive when we do have large events.
Speaker 8: Okay. And so and I'm trying to figure out how many cars are we planning for? And me and I don't know if this is a question for Tina. And I think you said something earlier. I didn't get to write it down partly because I was I was trying to figure out where you have your little hat with your fares man and the little go cart. I don't know where that is, but I was trying to figure out where you put that so I can cruise it around while you were in here.
Speaker 0: But.
Speaker 8: Couldn't find it. However, I do have a question, Neal. Thank you. I do have a question as to how many how many parking spaces are we looking at with this particular zone district? How many would the capacity be?
Speaker 6: The minimum parking requirements, default to the standard zone district requirements. So for multi-unit dwellings, for example, in the existing building, if those were to be carved up into individual dwelling units, multifamily dwelling units in a urban row, home zoned district, anyone have their zoning code with them by chance? I don't know why. Kyle Dalton from our our department does.
Speaker 8: A black binder. Wow.
Speaker 6: I have the plan. He has the code. We make a good team.
Speaker 8: I mean, you don't have to be exact, but just an estimate, I to know what I'm trying to figure out.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Kind of like capacity or something similar. And if it's actually.
Speaker 6: It's it's not going to be as many as 325 I don't think.
Speaker 8: But it won't be 600 either, right?
Speaker 6: No, you only you need one. Thank you. A minimum of one parking space per dwelling unit for the multifamily. You need one parking space for each of the duplex units in a structure. If you do purely single family development, the code and all zoned districts, including the PWD, it doesn't have a minimum parking requirement. But as you know, most market built single family homes provide at least one or two spaces.
Speaker 0: Pointed at me. Okay.
Speaker 8: And the half would probably go for the go kart. So there we have it. Anyway, thank you very much. I really appreciate that. So I really appreciate that. And Bill, thank you for answering that question as well, too. Thank you, Tina.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman, no data.
Speaker 10: Okay. So I just have to ask questions that were not asked. So the first one would be for Tina. So since the design process is separate from the zoning, can you explain the process and the inclusion of neighborhood input into that process with. Your department.
Speaker 6: Sure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're referring to the site development plan review process that would follow the zoning entitlement. And when a specific.
Speaker 10: Esthetic to the design guidelines and where the neighborhood wants some input into the design guidelines, which, you know, I heard some of those got included in the EPD application, but there it sounds like that was a recommendation from one person, but it didn't really have broad input from the neighborhood. And because it is a separate process, I want to know.
Speaker 6: Okay, I'm going to have to defer to the applicants to respond because they're not part of the zoning. So wouldn't be picked up in any subsequent site development plan review or zoning review by the city, any design guidelines that are attached as covenants to the land and administered and enforced by nature. We are outside the city process, so I would have to defer to them to suggest what the vehicle and what that review process would look like.
Speaker 10: So who wants to take that one?
Speaker 0: Mr. SEMA Yes, thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. The design guidelines that have been developed to date are posted on the website for the project.
Speaker 10: Our commitment to the neighborhood know where to access that if they want to submit.
Speaker 0: I believe so and I'll give it to you. It's W WW Shrine Preservation Partners AECOM. Cleverly enough, those design guidelines were developed, we thought, in concert with at least some of the neighbors. I think just in the last week and tonight, we've heard for the first time that they aren't considered to be sufficient. I think I can speak on behalf of my client, the developer, that we will continue to work on those much more important and work on those with the neighborhood. Much more important, though, our commitment to the planning commission, planning board, to you folks, to Councilwoman Shepherd and others has been that when the property is conveyed from the Shriners to the developer, we will restrict the deed to require that those design guidelines be enforced no matter who does the vertical construction. So if we do the vertical construction or we sell individual lots, those design guidelines will apply and they'll be enforced by either a nature way that's established or a metro district that way. Or Metro District will likely also have a design review committee, which will include at least one neighbor, and that will give the neighborhood yet another opportunity to have some input on what that vertical development looks like in the end.
Speaker 10: So I'm talking about the front end though, and I listen pretty carefully to all of the input and I heard that there is a concern that. There really hasn't been. And I know you all have had a pretty lengthy process of talking with the neighborhood, but I heard some concerns about not really being able to weigh in on the design guidelines. It sounds like most of the discussion was more around density and preserving the building and you know, all of that stuff. So, so that's where I was going. And I thought I had heard Tino mention that there was a separate process with the city. So that's part of why I'm asking this question about where is there the opportunity for additional neighborhood input into the design so that you all reach that you know, that comfort level with one another on on where this goes with the design.
Speaker 0: There is no formal process for that. But I can speak, I believe, on behalf of the development group and commit that we will continue to work with the neighbors on those design guidelines. Again, it comes as some surprise to me that there's this much consternation about those we did, we thought, develop those in concert with neighbors who were interested in participating. I've seen a number of letters in the last week that suggest perhaps we didn't include enough people. You're right. We did spend a lot of time on density and other matters, but I'll be happy to commit my developer client here to continuing to work with the neighborhood to refine those design guidelines so that they meet everybody's satisfaction.
Speaker 10: Okay. And I have one last question. And, Mr. Sibley, are you a representative of the development team? Okay. Would you mind coming to the microphone, please? I don't recall hearing anything about what the mix was of the housing units in terms of how many are proposed to be sales versus how many would be rental. Are they all proposed to be for sale units? Can you speak to that?
Speaker 0: All of the units that will be built in new construction are planned to be for sale units.
Speaker 10: Okay.
Speaker 0: So units in the shrine, which would be up to 19 units, I think we have in there to 20, would be the maximum in the shrine. We haven't made a determination on whether those will be for rent or for sale.
Speaker 10: So 19 to 20 units only would be in. Am I hearing you say 19 to 24 sale units would be in the shrine and then the remainder would be rental? Now we understand what that means because.
Speaker 0: Units in the shrine.
Speaker 10: Because when I asked about numbers earlier, I heard that we probably are looking at somewhere in the ballpark of 20 on site A and B, I'm sorry, say B and C and then on A, which is the building we're looking at, probably more like 58 units in the building, unless I understood.
Speaker 0: That 58 units on the site in total in segment eight.
Speaker 10: So am I hearing you say that Segment A can have development on the site in addition to what will be in the building?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 10: Okay. That wasn't really clear during the presentation to me earlier. So that's why I'm asking these questions. So given that you're looking at. The majority of these units being for sale. You know, we have an inclusionary housing ordinance that covers for sale units. Yes. So can you speak to what that commitment is to the affordable units?
Speaker 0: Well, our our current plan was to and our current forma suggests that we will opt out and pay the opt out fee for that. We are meeting later this week, although I saw an email that may have changed that meeting with Paul Washington and his group at the Economic Development Officer, the mayor. And we are going to discuss how we might approach that either in the opt out or by placing units on the side.
Speaker 10: So it's not clear whether you're going to do them on site or I heard you say your preference would be to do the opt out.
Speaker 0: Well, our current pro forma suggests will opt out. That's nothing to do.
Speaker 10: Yes. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Can you guys want to take a capsule in Rob's back up.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. One final round of questions. I was looking at the staff report because a lot of the communication I received is refutes the staff report. And as you go through the areas of stability piece that Councilwoman Shepherd was asking about, you point out the blueprint. Denver in this is page 17 of the staff report for council tonight. Blueprint Denver provides guiding principles, respect value development patterns, relationship of building to street location a garage driveway got that respect valid attributes of an area, existing buildings, those adding distinctive character. I get that. Expand transportation choices in the following one Minimize traffic impacts on neighborhood streets, including less cut through traffic. After you go through that, just a couple more bullets. I won't read it. Says it. CPD Staff Finds the proposed rezoning furthers the above goals. Can you address the thinking on the transportation piece? Those two bullets about expand transportation choice in minimize traffic impacts.
Speaker 6: Okay after preface response to your councilwoman Robb with there's only so much that zoning can do to implement our plans.
Speaker 4: Right. That's fair. I, I thought about that as a possible answer.
Speaker 6: Okay. To the extent that zoning has jurisdiction and and influence on on implementing the principles that you cited from Blueprint Denver as to future land use and development, you know, expand transportation choices, including access to transit, I would have to say, admittedly, this proposed zoning in its place doesn't do too much to expand the actual choice of transportation. The choice of transportation is there. Is there. And it's not going to change by virtue of this development. There is there is transit. There is a bus line of 50 that which stops at 50th. And Tennyson is the 52 line. It's not high frequency service, but it's regular service. And it does bring folks from the far reaches of northwest Denver and Adams County into downtown and beyond. You know, the addition of people at the shrine property, you know, would have the choice of using transit to come downtown. Certainly busses there doesn't do much to expand the choice. You know, if you're reading it that way, minimize. You want to talk about the other bullet or. Yes. Minimize traffic impacts on neighborhood streets, including less cut through traffic. Well, here there's there's really one way and one way out, which is West 50th. There are some existing homes there that will, you know, will be on 50th after this development comes. And it's not creating cut through traffic. It's using 50th as a local street to get to to the collector Tennyson. It doesn't encourage cut through on rain or Utica. There's going to be very little directional traffic to the north because you can't get anywhere. So unless you're going to a home that already exists on rain or Utica, by virtue of this development, you're not going to create any incentives to cut through the existing neighborhood. Everyone's going to use 50th to get to Tennyson, to get to the rest of the wherever you're traveling to. And we have found that there is sufficient capacity on 50th once it improved with even the existing stop sign there to handle the addition of.
Speaker 4: Units, 50th is who's going to improve 50th the city.
Speaker 6: The developer. The developer as a yeah. As mitigating the impacts of additional density on that site.
Speaker 4: And that will be required during the.
Speaker 6: Site development.
Speaker 4: Plan. Got it. Okay. All right. So what I think I'm hearing you say, just let me repeat it back is Blueprint Rec provides those principles. And as much as land use can address them, their address. That's what the CPD statement below is.
Speaker 6: Correct?
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Rob. All right.
Speaker 2: Many more questions on 1075. Seeing none, public areas not closed and time for comments. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I really, really want to thank everyone for turning out tonight. I feel that we have had an extremely thorough, full and fair discussion of all of the issues that are relevant to this site. Thank you to the neighbors. Thank you to the Shriners. And thank you, Shriners, for your continued philanthropic work, by the way. And thank you also to the development team for participating in this piece. I, I want to I want to start by saying this is probably the most unique rezoning application I have certainly considered since I've been on council. This is an extremely unique area, and if you haven't had a chance to go see it in person, I highly recommend that you do have to add it at least three times, most recently this late this past week. I have walked every part of this property. I have been all through this building. I have looked at the beautiful ballroom floors, the beautiful fixtures in the ballroom and throughout the building, discussed some of the I mean, it's there's so many unique design features and elements to this building. It is truly one of the most interesting historic assets in all of northwest Denver. Councilman Brown, I don't know about the secret handshakes. We didn't discuss that. But I will tell you, if you don't go through this building with a guide, you will certainly get lost in all of the passageways. Is a very labyrinthine building and up. Councilman Lopez, I didn't see any of the little mini mini carts, but there is a whole wall of phases going back 100 years. And I bet if you ask nicely, they might let you try. Went on. Anyway, colleagues, if you haven't had a chance to read the history of the site that's included with our our packet materials, you really should because it's really fascinating reading. So I'm I am going to support this rezoning tonight and let me tell you why. Thank you, Ms.. Axelrod, for your very thorough presentation on Blueprint Denver and and where and how this piece fits in. I think some of the really salient points to me is our goal to preserve really unique heritage sites that speak to our history. First and foremost, I believe that we need to while we're doing that, though, to preserve flexibility, to address changing demographics and lifestyle, as also considered in that document document we have discussed tonight the opportunity for a diverse mix of housing opportunities at this site, including townhomes, single families, duplex, potentially condos and or apartments in the main shrine building. We also talked about the need to negative to to decrease negative visual impact. And I'm going to talk about that a little bit later. Thank you so much for all the news to all the neighbors who have worked so diligently on this project and given so much feedback due to directly due to your efforts, the shrine has been returned. The redevelopment has been reduced from 90 units to now a hard cap in this part of 78 units. No expansion of the current shrine building will be allowed per this PD. And only single family and duplex forms on areas. B and C and then the area west of the shrine itself. Regarding the issue of design guidelines, could they be stronger? Yes, I think they could. And I would highly, highly encourage the development team to continue working with our neighbors around that issue. But I will call your attention to a fair number of design guides that are currently enshrined. No pun intended in this pod application, or maybe pun intended those. I will call out and I may forget some are regarding additional setbacks, reductions in height and massing in order to sculpt the edges of some of these sub areas. Allow for more open space. Allow for views. A very specific language about fence and wall design and screening of garages. Also, some areas, a requirement for a pitched roof, which, as Councilman Ken each pointed out, is, I believe, no in no other zoning designation across this entire city, and then additional incentives for pitched roofs and some of some of the other areas. I want to acknowledge some of the comments made tonight. Miss Harris, your comments about the process and actually Mr. Laws as well. You know, we had a meeting about this, I think it was November and discussed this in detail. I will tell you that I have met and discussed this with the chair of the Community Planning and Development, Brad Buchanan, no less than three times. And I've had very serious discussions, and I know this has provoked many internal discussions about how we can improve our processes around this. And there is the full commitment, both from myself and from CPD, to make some changes to address some of your very specific concerns. I think that the part of Ms.. Axelrod's presentation that I found to be most relevant is this discussion of. Areas of stability, committed areas versus areas for reinvestment. I think it's very apropos for this site. We've talked a lot about the single family home character of this area. But the other thing that we need to acknowledge is that there is a huge historic building also right in the middle of this neighborhood that contributes to the character of this neighborhood. And one thing that we didn't bring up, in addition to the golf course that surrounds the peninsula, there's a clubhouse. It's very active during parts of the year. So there's a lot going on in this neighborhood in addition to the single family homes that already exist. There is the episodic use of the shrine as an event center that often brings a lot of traffic, which, as Mr. Lovely pointed out, is really not so nice as those traffic lights leave his house and continue or leave the area and continually shine into his house. I really thought that what Tina said in relation to the areas of reinvestment was important. Talking about minimizing inappropriate uses. Redeeming vacant land and potentially considering major projects in small areas. If this area is primarily single family use. And a neighborhood. I would argue that a large events center is not really an appropriate use for this site. And I would further argue that considering this as some sort of potential commercial use is also inappropriate. I would argue that going to a residential format would actually be a better use of the land, more consistent with neighborhood context than the current commercial use which is out of place. So I think that's an important point. One other thing I would like to say is that. The shrine itself. It's an amazing building. I talked about it. The lady is aging and not so gracefully. Mr. Schwartz, I heard a little bit of the pain in your voice about wishing that your building built approximately the same time as this one was in better shape. I've been all over that building. There's 50, 60 years of deferred maintenance on it. I hear you when you say you can't afford to keep that building. You've got to get out of there. And I would say in a broader context to all community members in this room, as well as community planning and development in this next go around updates to our planning documents. We've got to have a much broader conversation about these huge legacy institutional uses that exist throughout our city that are becoming obsolete as time goes by. And I'm talking about some of these fraternal organizations, as well as many of our churches that are financially going under, which, unfortunately, in many of our church situations are often zoned for single family uses. But they're on the huge pieces of land. As is this. We have to have broader, deeper, more intelligent discussions in our planning process about what will happen to these types of places as the inevitable happens. I wish we could all still belong, that we all still belong to fraternal organizations. And we all went to church and synagogue more regularly. I bet we'd be a better place, but that's not the case right now anyway. I think one of the most interesting things I heard tonight actually was from Mr. Lovely, and that was the phrase considered urban density. I don't know if you coined that or if you got that from somewhere else. You made it up. Okay. Well, I may I will ask your permission to use it quite a lot from now on going forward. This is not been an easy process. It's been very anguishing for many involved. I have lost a lot of sleep over it. I know a lot of the people in these pews have to. This is going to be potentially this will be a big change in this neighborhood. But this decision is not being made lightly. I hope you can tell that by the quality and the character of this discussion tonight, by the attention of all these folks in this on this dais and by the questions that is answered and I have been asked and discussed. So I really feel that I know it's going to be hard. I know it's going to bring a lot of change. But I think it's the right move at the right time for this place. And once again, Shriner's, thank you for all you've done to hold down the fort in that area. Should this pass tonight? I wish you all the best. I bet your next building will probably be nowhere near as interesting, but it'll be a lot easier to take care of. And I'd like one of those visits anyway. Thank you so much. I know that they're my other colleagues. Probably have things to say as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Shephard. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. My comments will be brief. I I've been paying attention to this particular rezoning. It's been in the Northwest Denver Tribune. It's been written about it. You know, a lot of folks have emailed me about it from one side or the other. And, you know, I'm starting to see this happen in a lot of different neighborhoods where they're becoming absolutely desirable or folks are really wanting to live the lifestyle that a lot of us natives have growing up in in Denver, which is still laid back. Denver's a big city. It's a great city. It's a beautiful city, but it's still local, right? It still acts as a as a small town. Has that feel? Has that community feel? You know, I'm a West Sider. I spent most of my time just at the Mile High Stadium. I marched and rode First Avenue Barnum Federal. But, you know, occasionally I'd be catch me wandering in the north side and catch me wandering around eligible shrines, seeing Roberto Gregory and seeing, I think at one point flocking JIMENEZ And a lot of things, a lot of going to weddings at the eligible shrine, going to see community events , dances, dinners, things like that. That's where the community went to celebrate. And that's the neighborhood that I remember. I remember Elegies. I remember 38. I remember Federal Theater, remember all that, those the things that are the soul of our city. Those are the neighborhoods that are the soul of our city. And it's very delicate. And each time we see something like this come up for a rezoning or you see new plans, and a lot of us feel real touched by that, sometimes we get a little defensive about it. And not to simplify the opposition's argument, because I think you have a great argument to the you know, it's absolutely worthy. I heard it in these chambers and I'm glad folks showed up to do it. But, you know, times are changing. Denver is becoming more populated and as as is becoming more populated. And this isn't a question about affordable housing, but it does impact the affordability of housing availability, housing in our city. Yet for folks who live around it, it could be it's a huge change. It's different and it means more traffic. It means you need to have different folks in the neighborhood. It's a completely almost a different. Kind of lifestyle for the folks that are living there. But understand that as we grow, you have to know that you have to plan. Now, I'd be a little bit afraid if we did this with the old Chapter 22, the old zone districts. I'd be a little nervous about it, but some of the zone districts that we have now and some of the things that folks in planning are looking at are much more fine tuned and allow for more creative development . What I am going to plead, although I'm seeking I'm going to support this rezoning. I'm going to plead to the folks who are potentially, you know, working around the shrine. Keep the shrine original. Keep it as a celebration of the neighborhood of who we are. Keep it for the neighborhood, for Denver. Those are the memories, all those faces that are in there. Right. All those weddings do your best. To keep one of our diamonds. Brilliant. One of our old buildings were old landmarks. I almost wept when I heard that Paris on the plot was going to close and it closed. I got sad when when they move dealerships, even though it's in a good spot. I miss it. This is one of those things that we hold very sacred to our city. And hopefully it's in good hands. If I know any better that you know the back and forth, the little proposed ideas about Charlie Willie stepping in, you know, he did a good job with the loans team theory. He actually, you know, it was sitting empty on East Colfax. And to be quite honest, I had never been there until I went to go see my first show where Los Lobos played there. And it was amazing. And I wondered why the heck I never set foot in that theater before. And so it's one of those. It could be one of those. Venues. It could be something that the neighborhood says, this is who we are and it's what we're proud of in the States. So having said that, I want to make it too long of a speech. I promise I'd have shorter remarks. But there you go. I support it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly understand why this facility needs to be sold. I understand the maintenance challenges that you have. At the beginning, I was certainly wide open to doing that. The comments of the neighbors, not people who are Shriners, but the neighbors started to sink in. And I will admit that the final answer when I asked a question following the role Mr. Wooley would play and then whether they would be accessing public money in any way. And then 2 seconds later, I got I heard the answer to Councilwoman Robb. Yes. They were going to be looking at tax credits, historic tax credits and such that I got the no answer. She got the answer to my very same question. So I am not feeling comfortable about this period and the way things are being presented and whether they are fully baked at this point. Because it appears to me that we're getting different, different answers. Plus the fact that Councilman Lopez talked about the great example. I remember going three through three variations of having the city taken to the cleaners more and more each time on the Lowenstein project. Not a good experience in my memory, and I don't want to sit here and worry about this one. So I will be voting no tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I was trying to figure out if there was another site anywhere comparable to this in the city. So as we're talking about, you know, looking at something that is I mean, most most of the neighborhoods that are stable neighborhoods, when we talk about development opportunities, they're generally on the edges of the neighborhood. And and this site is very unique. I was asking Councilwoman Robb if if she knew this street that I was trying to think of where one of our former school board members lives. It's sort of on the west end of the Denver Country Club. It's a very unique area. There's a there's a swimming pool down there that just some of the residents I think there are like three or four residents that live in that little area. You drive down a hill to get there if if somebody's ever assembled all those single family homes. That's the only thing I could think of that might be somewhat comparable. That's on the edge of a golf course, but it's surrounded by, you know, single family homes where someone might be able to develop it in in a similar way. And I don't know that we would look at that the same, but be that as it may. The one thing I think is important is to continue to urge the development team to keep the conversation open with the neighborhood about the design standards or guidelines, whatever you want to call them. So that what this looks like in the end is something that's compatible with the neighborhood. Hopefully it looks somewhat similar to the existing building, but I think that dialog, continuing that dialog is an important part of this conversation. You know, we're challenged in this city other than all the land that we have at Green Valley Ranch. And, you know, most of Stapleton is is almost completely built out now. We are a landlocked city, and there are constant pressures that are brought before us with people wanting to develop in the city of Denver. Everybody wants to live in the city and it's becoming so unaffordable, which is part of why I asked about the affordable units. Many of us on this day a struggle to ensure that we are working to find opportunities for affordability within the city so we don't become a city of only those who can afford to live here . And so part of those development pressures that we have are, you know, people wanting to build and looking at opportunities to have housing here. But it's important to also look at ensuring that we have that affordability and and opportunities for all folks in this city to be able to live here. And, you know, we struggle with that. We work on that through through other means. You've heard us talk about, you know, social impact bonds that we have had. Some discussions about and we'll be seeing more of that come forward in terms of the kinds of programs or projects that we're going to support with that. But this particular project is unique because of its proximity to residential single family residential homes. It about a golf course. I'm a little concerned about having parking abutting up to the golf course. But you know, again, that's part of why the design discussions become really important between the neighborhood and the developer. I think there's been a lot of work that's gone into this. I know you've all been working on this for quite some time. I'm comfortable with the discussion in terms of where we have landed on this. I want to thank Councilwoman Sheppard for her efforts in trying to keep the conversation alive between the development team and the neighbors and in working. And I think you need it needs to be acknowledged. I mean, I think lots of times people start here because, you know, you're going to end here. But the fact that there was a lot of movement on this project in terms of where it did start and and where we're at in terms of the number of units that will be on site. Obviously, with any development team and with the financing folks that look at them, they always want to make sure that the parking is part of a project. I know lots of times our zoning code will say one thing on parking, but the financing team says no. If you want to sell them, you've got to have the the the parking units. And so I believe that piece will work itself out. So I will be lending my support to this application tonight as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I do want to thank Councilwoman Shepherd for her work, everybody who testified either for or against, including the development team, because at committee, there was a sense, as Tina Axelrod said, that more work needed to be done. And I'm glad to see that more work would be done has been done. As I read through the documents and letters before me and my staff and I went up and drove around the neighborhood to to look at it is so unique. The first time I ever saw the shrine was, I think when Rick Garcia left council and I went to his farewell party and I went point what's in there? Because it was pretty cool. But I think all of this material has been about trying to figure out what the context of this neighborhood is and should be. Is context about number of units? Is it about peaked roofs? Is it about sidewalks? Is it about traffic? Is it about preserving the shrine? Is it about materials? Is it about whether parking by the golf course? And by the way, I think I read that it can't you can't have parking right along the golf course. And when you put that all together and try to figure out what is going to fit in, there is not exactly a perfect answer. The one thing we know, and these are broad general contexts is this is an edge context text. I don't think anybody disagreed with that tonight. An edge context is right between urban and suburban, and it even allows suburban forms and urban forms. I was really glad to hear because I had some question about it based on the letters that I had received. Why we chose Urban Rowhouse in instead of a townhouse form. Because if I lived there, I'd much prefer not having the garage right on the front of the building so that all you saw from the street was the garage. The other thing that has become apparent to me through this discussion is that the PWD zoning is definitely appropriate for this site. That's a case that needed to be made. And Susan Shepard spoke to specific pads or you did, Debbie, about what we used to do. And this also applies to the guidelines. I referred to a very difficult rezoning that thankfully happened before I was on council. But we all face these tough decisions. It's right at ninth and Colorado on the west side of the street. We had local architects. We had pictures. We had specified materials. No one likes this particular development. Even though we had it all laid out. So what assures the quality that we want in this neighborhood? Because it's clearly a quality neighborhood and I would argue it's a quality of the development team. The difference between eyes that I see between the project I'm referencing and the one tonight is we have a local team, not a team out of Texas, not that there are good developers in Texas, but we have a team that understands the context of the area of the area. They may not agree with everyone to the point of every bit of that context, but they understand and they understand what Denver's going through. And then finally, I spent a lot of time thinking about the question that this zoning doesn't require that the shrine be renovated. It's based on the renovation and the zone of the shrine, but it doesn't require it. And I got to thinking exactly what Tina said before I came over. I don't know. One zoning that requires a developer to develop. You know, that's why we have so much going on in Cherry Creek. Lots of those things are zoned seven years ago, so there's no guarantee there. But I definitely believe that it's much more likely the shrine will be renovated if we pass this rezoning tonight rather than if we wait for the great unknown. So I will be supporting it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman from Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be very brief, which most of the points were covered by my colleagues, particularly Councilwoman Sheppard, who was very thorough in describing all of the ways that this developer has compromised and the benefits of those compromises. I just felt it was important for full disclosure because I live closer to this site than anyone else on this council. I live a half mile exactly south in the Berkley neighborhood. And so this is my neighborhood. And, you know, contrary to something I read or heard about biking, I bike up this hill all the time. I can't describe it as fun and I can't say that I'm always on my bike the entire hill. But but I do, as do many others, I think spend time in this in this vicinity. So and, you know, as I was thinking, you know, Councilwoman Ortega mentioned something. She was trying to think of a similar site and immediately jumped into my head. I am five houses across the street and five houses from the Ilitch development. The significant difference being connectivity right there. You have a complete grid here. You certainly do not. But, you know, in fact, the Ilitch Theater is is not shuttered and boarded up anymore. It's actually got an occupancy permit. And I saw Charlie and the chocolate factory there last summer and many people saw many other films. So it is an active site in and in fact, it took a really long time, but the density around that historic building made it possible for that historic building to be preserved. So so I find that to be very similar to this situation, a much smaller building, but also very high cost and a piece of history. The band show was preserved and there was opposition, you know, from that neighborhood about that density. There's both row home townhome as well as apartments and in that site and it works. You know, it's a place where neighbors begin to integrate and they begin to walk through an experience. Yes, it looks different than the historic homes. There are no pitched roof requirement there. But certainly we have you know, you have I think that's your biggest win, to be honest with you. The pitched roofs, most neighborhoods would really like to get that kind of requirement. So so I say all this to say that, you know, I, I, I experience that kind of edge habitat where I live. I hope that you will come to be a part of that process. I think there was a little semantic disagreement about or not disagreement, but confusion that design guidelines are not formal. But the site plan will get at many of the issues that folks are describing as design. So there is a formal process that will address many of the things folks are concerned about. It just isn't called design guidelines. So, you know that that I think may may be helpful. So I hope folks do stay engaged. And I hope that you will find as much benefit from the combination of historic preservation and new density as, as I have found, being near a very similar development. So with that, I will be supporting this rezoning. And I want to appreciate Councilman Sheppard's leadership in making sure that so many concerns were addressed. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each any other comments on 1075? I mean, right before we do the roll call, I want to tell you, I thank you for your patience. I can't imagine you're going to stick around after this one. But the council does have one more public hearing. So I would just ask that you would be quiet as you were leaving so we can go directly into that last public hearing. So thank you for that. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Shepard Sussman.
Speaker 4: Brooks.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Hi, Fats. No carnage, layman. Hi. Lopez. I monteiro Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please call the body and ask the result.
Speaker 4: To advice one nay.
Speaker 2: One nay. 1025 has been placed on final consideration and pass. All right. We are moving on to our last public hearing of the night, 1076. Councilwoman Fox, could you please put 1076 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located at 4625 West 50th Avenue and 5030 Vrain Street from PUD #273 to PUD #G11 in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Rezones property located at 4625 West 50th Avenue and 5030 Vrain Street from PUD #273 to PUD #G11 in Council District 1. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-10-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01202015_14-1076
|
Speaker 2: One nay. 1025 has been placed on final consideration and pass. All right. We are moving on to our last public hearing of the night, 1076. Councilwoman Fox, could you please put 1076 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Certainly, Mr. President, I know the Council Bill 1076 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: But it has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for a council bill 1076 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Good evening, Kyle. Kyle Dalton again with community planning and development. I'm pinch hitting for tonight for Sarah Showalter, my capable but ill colleagues. So I will give her the credit for a very brief presentation here at the end of the day. This rezoning request is to correct a technical error in the Cherry Creek North rezoning we did at the end of October in 2014. It's been initiated by our department community planning and development, and it clarifies that areas of land that were formerly rights away, that have been long since vacated, were included in the legislative re rezoning action that you took in October 2014. There's a this is a technical correction to the legal description in the ordinance that described that zoning we did back in October. It's in Council District ten in the Cherry Creek North area. This map that's in your packet shows the specific alleys and streets that were platted but have long since been vacated that are private property today and that were intended to be included in that rezoning in October 2014. And this just clears that up in all of the properties that are to be clarified that they were zoned in October are going to the same zoning that surrounds them, that that entire private property that they're adjacent to enjoys already. But even though it's just a technical error, it requires all of the process of a rezoning other than going to planning board. So it has been properly noticed at the time of receipt of application at the Neighbors and Planning Committee. Tonight, we have we have posted signs in the neighborhood. We've sent written notification out. I've gone to the Cherry Creek Steering Committee and answered their technical questions about this. We have received no written public comments on this rezoning. Just one slide on the review criteria, which is in summary, we reviewed it the same way review. We reviewed the rezoning in October for all of Cherry Creek North. And so we based our analysis on that analysis where we found it consistent with the adopted plans and this clarification, we're just rezoning those vacated rights away to the same zoned districts that about them. The justifying circumstance in this case is the correction of an error in the official zoning map. Otherwise, our analysis is identical to the analysis we provided and in October, in which there has done a good job detailing in the written staff report. So having reviewed it against the criteria we recommend approval of.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. All right. We have no we have no speakers. And so directly to questions. Councilman Neville.
Speaker 0: Yeah, just a point of order, Mr. President. This is not located in District one, so I don't know if we're we can actually consider this tonight because this.
Speaker 5: District one show. What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: I guess we can make an exception.
Speaker 0: All right. Any. Oh.
Speaker 2: They're lining them. All right. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: I have a comment.
Speaker 2: Okay, so any other questions? You know the question on 1076. Seen on public hearing now closed. Time for comments. We'll start with council woman. Rob.
Speaker 4: Please vote for this.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilman lopez.
Speaker 0: For this man. Yes.
Speaker 2: All right. Great presentation. Any other any other comments on that? Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 5: Thank you to all of my colleagues for listening to so much passionate testimony tonight regarding so many projects in District one. I appreciate your indulgence.
Speaker 2: Any other comments? 1076. Seen none, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 4: Rob Shepherd.
Speaker 5: Sussman.
Speaker 4: Brooks Brown. Hi, Fats. I can eat lemon. Lopez, Montero. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Kathleen Brooks. Come in, Brown. You voted. You didn't need just you to punch that, if you could, please. All right, Madam Secretary, please cast a vote in. Now the results.
Speaker 5: Lebanese.
Speaker 2: Lebanese 1036 have been placed on final consideration and does pass. On Tuesday, February 17th, 2015, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1094, changing the 11 classification for BLOCK One, the South Lake subdivision. Finally one located in southeast corner of 17th Avenue and Stewart Street, a required public hearing on Council Bill 1095, changing the zoning classification for 1673 South Emerson Street. And on Monday, March 2nd, Council hold a quiet public hearing on Council Bill 1096 Change in Zoning Classification 7200 East 36th Avenue. Any protest against Council Bill 1094 1095 must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon on Monday, February nine, 2015. And any protest against Council Bill 1096 must be filed with the Council Offices no later than noon on Monday, February 23rd, 2015. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 1: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 0: Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 6: You are watching Denver eight TV.
Speaker 1: Your city. Your source.
|
Bill
|
Corrects the legal description of the legislative map amendment that rezoned property from C-CCN, PUD, or C-MU-10 with waivers and conditions to proposed zone districts C-CCN-4, C-CCN-5, C-CCN-7, C-CCN-8, or C-CCN-12 in Council District 10. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Corrects the legal description of the legislative map amendment that rezoned property from C-CCN, PUD, or C-MU-10 with waivers and conditions to proposed zone districts C-CCN-4, C-CCN-5, C-CCN-7, C-CCN-8, or C-CCN-12 in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-11-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01122015_14-1099
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd. All right, ma'am. Secretary. Can you tee up the next one, which should be 1099, called out by Councilwoman Fox? Thank you very much. Councilwoman Fox, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 6: I would appreciate your taking both 1099 and 1100 as a block.
Speaker 0: Certainly you want those on the floor.
Speaker 6: I do. I would like a vote on them.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman, I'll tell you what. You make the motions for us.
Speaker 8: Be happy to.
Speaker 0: Could you please have ten, 99 and 1100 on a block to be ordered published?
Speaker 8: Absolutely. I move that council bills 1099 and 1100 of 2014 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It's been moved in. Second comments. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. In committee, there was discussion about the Saint Anthony redevelopment plans, and I'm very supportive of having that area redeveloped and have been supportive of almost everything that's gone in until I heard plans to give TIFF benefit to the Alamo Theater and Draft House, and I decided that maybe when you're looking at I think it was about 1,000,003 was the price tag there that maybe that wasn't what the general taxpayer would see as the very best use of taxpayer funds for a theater and drafthouse. And so I know we're going to be having a public hearing on this. I don't need to go into this in doubt, but I had enough discomfort that I decided that with these two ordinances, which both relate to the same thing, that I would like to cast a no vote in the interim.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. And all due respect.
Speaker 1: To Councilman.
Speaker 0: Fox, I absolutely.
Speaker 4: Disagree. I think this side of town has been neglected for so long. There has been a process, our community members behind it, and they are tired of having to go across county lines to do shopping. Most folks in west Denver go west of Sheridan to do their business. It's time that they stay in Denver to do their business. This is part of that puzzle and this is part of that that vision. So I fully, fully support it.
Speaker 0: And plan on voting for it as well. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any of the comments on 1099 or 1100? See none. We're voting on these in the black, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Flats. No, Ken. Each Lehman. All right. Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. Hi.
Speaker 8: Ortega, I.
Speaker 7: Sheppard, I.
Speaker 3: BROOKS okay. And, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Now Secretary since. Can you note.
Speaker 3: That he said. I said.
Speaker 0: That? Yes. Okay, we go. Thank you. Please close the venue. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: Ten Eyes one name.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes one no. 1099 1100 had been ordered published in a block. We have one more bill for introduction. 1124. Councilman SHAPIRO, would you like for us to do with this?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an Ordinance authorizing and approving an amendment to the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the Sloans Block 7 West Project and to Create the Sloans Block 7 West Sales Tax Increment Area
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves an amendment to the St. Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan for the Sloans Block 7 West Project in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-16-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01122015_14-1124
|
Speaker 0: Ten eyes one no. 1099 1100 had been ordered published in a block. We have one more bill for introduction. 1124. Councilman SHAPIRO, would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 7: I'd like to ask questions and also probably put it on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 0: She. Would you like us to put on the floor first and then ask questions, or will the answers determine whether or not you want to?
Speaker 7: Let's go ahead and put it.
Speaker 0: On the floor. Certainly. Kathleen Ortega, could you please have 1124 ordered published?
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I move that council bill 1124 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Men moved in second and comments. Questions. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 7: I don't need it yet, though. Okay. Hold that for the comment section, Senator. So. So. Arts and venues. Oh, Ted. Okay. Thank you. So I've been reading. Okay. I'm pulling this out because of the forthcoming Bill Cosby Show that has been booked at the Buell Theater next Saturday. I think it's the 17th, is that correct? And I've had a lot of discussions with some constituents regarding the sensitivity around this issue because of recent allegations regarding Mr. Cosby's conduct in the past. So, number one, I want to understand better what is. And I asked this question in counsel. But if when and how? Does the city intervene in its relationship with promoters concerning the content or like a particular artist? And yeah, please come up and then I have a follow up question.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Council of President and Council Members of Council Ted Bowman with Arts and Venues, the venue director for Red Rocks Amphitheater and the Denver Coliseum. So to answer your question that we rent all of our facilities, arts and venues, facilities to promoters as long as they comply with our booking policies and procedures, they then present the show. So the promoters present the shows and they work with the agents and managers with those particular artists. We we really don't we really try to be careful as the city to to censor or to talk about the content of both of the shows. There's a wide variety of entertainment choices and and content for each of the performances that we have. So the city doesn't really get into the like, I guess, judging of what the content materials are.
Speaker 7: Has the city ever moved to cancel a show in one of our venues?
Speaker 4: There have been efforts years ago to do so, but because of the challenges with again censoring content and material, the city doesn't do that.
Speaker 7: Okay, so that's one set of questions. And then I want to actually ask questions regarding the Bill 1124 specifically. And it is a, as I understand it, a commission to be paid to AEG, which is the promoter of this particular show for the Denver Arts and Venues Promoter Permission Commission program. I am wondering if you can explain very clearly for everyone who may be in this room or watching about what is the Promoter Commission program?
Speaker 4: Sure. So we had a commission program for a number of years at previously theaters and arenas, now arts and venues. And it's an incentive program to try to get the commercial promoters to continue to book the events that we have with all of our facilities. And it's really based on the revenue that they generate for us so they can earn a a portion of the rent back of what they generate for the facility. And overall, all of the other revenues that are generated at these particular events is far greater than the portion of the rent that they return, get returned back to them. And again, this is only for the commercial presenters because we have a different rate structure for all the noncommercial presenters.
Speaker 7: So let me just clarify, are the funds that are being used to do a give back? I don't know what else to call it. Is it taxpayer money or is it money that comes from the ticket sales generated?
Speaker 4: It comes from the ticket sales generated. Okay.
Speaker 7: I think that's really helpful because I think that there may be some people out there that have a misunderstanding about where these funds are coming from and how they're appropriated. Okay. Those are the questions I have. I don't know if anyone else has a question.
Speaker 0: Nobody as of yet chimed in. So if you have comments, cancel them and go right ahead.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So I've had a lot of conversations about this issue in the past week with constituents, and I understand very much, you know, where the city is, you know, on not wanting to censor and, you know, the contracts that we already have in place with our promoters and the contracts that those promoters have in place with their with their entertainment. Mr. Cosby has not been charged with anything. He hasn't been tried. He has not been found guilty. He's not been convicted. We all we know that. It. It it doesn't change the fact that just even all of the allegations that are floating around out there are really difficult and challenging for some people in our community who have experienced sexual assault, either personally or a loved one has. And, you know, it's been it's been a I've had some tough conversations in the last week about this. And I know that many times. And I will call them survivors. I won't call them victims. Don't speak up when sexual assault has happened because maybe they don't want to admit it to themselves that it's happened sometimes. It's been someone in a position of trust that has committed an action like this might be an employer, it might be an older family member, it might be a neighbor. There's a lot of doubt, anxiety, confusion, angst that that survivors experience when they you know, when they've had this coming, when they've had this issue happen to them. And they may feel very terrified for many reasons about coming forward and speaking up about about these issues, perhaps that they wouldn't be believed, perhaps that they might be ridiculed or blamed or told that they were at fault. And I know I just know that is such a hard thing for people to come forward and speak up about. And I have had a lot of conversations in the last week about this particular bill. Once again, I want to say that I know that Mr. Cosby Cosby has not been charged with anything. He has not been charged or convicted. But I just personally don't feel comfortable in voting yes on this bill tonight. I have had extensive conversations with the promoter Mr. Morris, regarding this so he knows where I'm standing. And so this is not a reflection on him, but it's something that I need to do. And I also at the same time want to put the information out there that if you are someone who has experienced sexual assaults either recently or in the past, where a loved one has and you really need to talk to someone, Kelly, you can go ahead and put it up. Now, I want to refer you to an excellent sex assault hotline that we have available in the metro area through an organization called Blue Bench. That hotline number is on the screen and it's 303322, 7273. Once again, 303322, 72, 73. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheperd, either. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I just wanted to thank Councilwoman Sheppard for making the issue behind her vote very clear. I do think this is a difficult situation, and she and I have discussed it and have talked a little bit with some of the same people or communicated. When I first heard about the situation, it was brought to my attention. I do also want to say that I felt that the mayor's office in our two venues were very responsive as I brought it up. And so I want that to be out on the table. I know that Kent Rice also had a conversation with Chuck Morris, but all of that said, I am going to go ahead with some discomfort and support this tonight because it's about more than just this one show. I would encourage people who are not pleased with this show being here to go ahead and to picket that. Certainly their free speech. Right, as well. And I would also say there are probably some other shows I would just as soon not have here in Denver that might not be part of this. But I do understand the contractual relationship. Some people think those shows are certain rap artists or whatnot. So because of the First Amendment and contractual reasons, I will be supporting this. But I absolutely respect Councilman Sheppard's approach.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Any of the comments on 1124 seen Under Secretary Roll Call Shepard?
Speaker 7: Shepard Epstein.
Speaker 3: Brooks.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Thought I can each. Laman Hi, Lopez.
Speaker 6: Montero Abstain.
Speaker 1: Nevitt Hi.
Speaker 8: Ortega Hi.
Speaker 3: Rob. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Councilwoman Montero. Catwoman Ortega Ortega chimed in and. There we go. Madam Secretary, please close the venue, announce the results.
Speaker 7: Excuse me. I don't. On my screen, I don't see my abstention. Nor do I see my name.
Speaker 3: It's down there.
Speaker 7: From.
Speaker 0: Your.
Speaker 5: Podium.
Speaker 7: Oh, I'm sorry. You there? Thank you. I appreciate that.
Speaker 0: That's okay. Please close the voting and out the results.
Speaker 3: Eight eyes, zero nays, three abstentions.
Speaker 0: 880 nays, three abstention. 1124 has been ordered published. Those are all the bills for introduction. We've got one bill. Final consideration, two council members, Councilwoman Robb, Councilwoman Ortega, I'll say, or either one of you two. Did you want to that called out for a vote or just for questions or comments either one for vote.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and AEG Live-Rocky Mountains, LLC, to promote and book concerts and live events at various City venues and facilities.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Adds $1.2 million to the contract with AEG Live-Rocky Mountains, LLC (for a total contract amount of $2.4 million) and extends it to 12-31-15 for the Denver Arts & Venues Promoter Commission Program (THTRS-201313532). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-2-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-31-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01122015_14-1101
|
Speaker 0: are going to be on 1102. And this also for council we have a companion bill correction 1101 in council members 1102 is a companion bill that we will also vote on after the public hearing. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1101 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Absolutely, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1101 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega has been moved and second in a public hearing for council bill. Um, no one is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Good evening, Mr. President, members of city council. We are here tonight to talk about a proposed amendment to the existing Walton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the 2460 Welton Street Redevelopment Project. The Walton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan was approved by City Council in September of 2012. In doing so, council found the Walton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan to be in conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 and its applicable supplements. While the Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing, TIFF cannot be used until it is specifically approved for a project. Therefore, the Denver Urban Renewal Authority is here this evening requesting City Council's consideration of an amendment to the well-known Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan plan to add the 2460 Walton Street Project and create the 2460 Welton Street property tax increment area. The Walton Corridor. Urban redevelopment area, as I mentioned, was established in 2012 to encourage redevelopment along the Welton Corridor. The urban redevelopment area is comprised of approximately 29 blocks, generally and approximately bounded by Broadway Street on the West Glenarm Place and 24th Avenue on the South Downing Street on the east and on the north by either California street or the alley between Welton and California streets. At the time, the Urban Redevelopment Plan was originally approved. No projects were identified. However, the plan allowed for future projects to request TIFF assistance and contemplated tax increment areas would be approved as projects were brought forward within the area. To date, one project has been approved. The Affordable Housing Development Project at 23 Welton. The project, being considered through an amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan this evening is the redevelopment of the site located at 2460 Welton Street. The project site is located at the southern corner of Welton Street and 25th Street. The project is comprised of three discrete buildings, built a above below grade structured parking. A five story stick on podium building at the corner of 25th and Welton will include 82 apartment units, 18 of which of which will be rent restricted to 80% of the area, median income or AMI and 3500 square feet of ground floor commercial space adjacent to the building facing Welton Street to the corner of 25th Avenue are nine townhomes, and additional five townhomes will be built facing the adjacent property to the southwest. The project would include ten ground floor parking spaces and 84 below grade parking spaces. In addition to the 14 parking spaces each under each of the townhomes. The apartment units range in size from 550 553 square feet, four studios to 938 square feet for the two bedrooms. The unit mix is noted on this slide here with which you can see that there are four studio units, if you will, with a zero separate bedroom and one bathroom, 53 one bedroom, one bath and seven two bedroom, two bath. Those are the market rate units. On the affordable units, there are 17 one bedroom, one baths and one two bedroom, two bath unit. The Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizes dirt to finance projects within the urban redevelopment area by the use of tax increment financing. The plan amendment will add the 2460 Welton Street Property Tax Increment area. Dura staff has reviewed the budgets and pro forma submitted by the developer and believes there is a financial gap in the project of $1,350,000. This financing gap would be addressed through the property tax increment generated by the redevelopment of the property. The site is currently owned by the developer who is paying approximately $15,000 per year in property taxes. This amount will constitute the base taxes from which property tax increment will be calculated. The estimated taxable value following redevelopment is anticipated to generate approximately $130,000 per year in net property tax increment. Again, these incremental property tax revenues will be used to reimburse the developer for eligible expenses of $1,350,000 over 25 years. As I noted previously, City Council found the Urban Redevelopment Plan to be in conformance with the Denver Plan 2000 and its applicable supplements. Accordingly, any amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan must be in conformance with the Urban Redevelopment Plan objectives to maintain the continuing conformance with the comp plan 2000. The general objectives of the Walton Court or Urban Redevelopment Plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions and to stimulate the continued growth and development of the area. The proposed project meets the following objectives of the Walton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan to eliminate the present and growing factors which contribute to the blight in the urban redevelopment area. Such blighting factors are detrimental to the community and represent an economic liability to the city. 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 more effectively use underdeveloped land within the urban redevelopment area to encourage land use patterns within the urban redevelopment area and its environs, which will reduce dependance upon private automobiles for transportation, to encourage land use patterns within the area and its environs that result in a more environmentally sustainable city to encourage land use patterns within the area where pedestrians are safe and welcome to encourage the participation of existing property owners within the area in the redevelopment of their property. Encourage high and moderate density development where appropriate, including structured parking promoted to a diverse mix of dense housing options. Promote a diverse, sustainable neighborhood economy, including mixed use and commercial development opportunities along the urban redevelopment area. There are a number of findings that are required by Colorado Urban Renewal Law in requesting the plan amendment. The first of those is that the 2460 Welton Street Project is located within the 29 BLOCK Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area, and it will promote the objectives set forth in the Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan 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 by the project. 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 to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first class mail to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the Welton Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Area on December 5th, 2014, which is at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. The statute requires that no more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the Plan Amendment. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on this Urban Redevelopment Plan Amendment. The statute also requires that two years must elapse before council can 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 an Urban Redevelopment Plan amendment for this project. Also, the plan amendment contains no property that was included in a previously submitted urban redevelopment 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. Conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. On December 3rd, 2014, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the proposed amendment to the Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to the Denver Comprehensive Plan and applicable supplements. A letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. Endura is requesting that the City Council concur with this finding. The Walton Corridor 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 Welton Corridor. Urban Redevelopment Area by Private Enterprise 2460 Walton Street, LLC, an affiliate of Palisade Partners, is the property owner and a private development entity who intends to undertake the redevelopment project. This plan amendment to the Walton Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Plan contains provisions for property tax increment financing. Accordingly, Denver Public Schools District One has been permitted to participate in an advisory capacity with respect to the inclusion in the plan of the tax allocation provisions authorized by Section 31, Dash 25, dash 107 and nine of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. Finally, the city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the 2460 Welton Street Urban Redevelopment Project area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and Darra to address additional infrastructure requirements and city services should they arise arise. In closing, jurors very pleased to be working with the city and county of Denver and the developer to bring this project forward. The redevelopment of the site and the delivery of 96 housing units with the combination of for sale, for rent and affordable units near downtown and along an existing transit corridor captures many citywide goals, objectives and strategies that are found in the Denver Comprehensive Plan. The Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan and the Walton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan. The 2460 Walton Project advances many of the plan objectives which are intended to revitalize this important corridor. We asked for your favorable consideration of this amendment, and I will be happy to answer any questions when the time is appropriate.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Tracy. We have two speakers lined up and you can both come to the front pew. Tracy Winchester and Mr. Sekou.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. My name is Tracy Winchester. I live at 217 South Jackson Street, Denver, Colorado. I am the executive director of the Five Points Business District. I have been the executive director since 2011, which means I have been very much involved in what has been going on in the revitalization of the well two street corridor . I worked closely with Tracy Huggins, Endura, to come up with the study to determine whether or not we had a blighted area and therefore qualified as an urban renewal area. One of the plans that Tracy did not talk about, because there was a study that was done in 2013 that specifically talked about what would it take for the revitalization of the Welton Street corridor? I quote, target 4 to 500 new residential units, including mixed income, rental and townhomes in non-core areas, and a prioritized commercial uses for a mixed use district. This is one of the very targeted goals that we have for the Welton Street corridor. And so we are very much in support of 2460 here today because this project exemplifies what we need, what we want, the vision for this community on the Welton Street corridor. I also would like to encourage that all of the members, please look at what this is happening here today, that we're far ahead of schedule. We are really ahead of schedule because of what your efforts have been with regards to housing and revitalization in the city of Denver. And we are part of your plan, and so we therefore encourage you to approve this project today. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Winchester. Mr. Sekou.
Speaker 11: My name is Jeremy Sekou. Advocacy group, Black Star Action Movement. Self-defense. Representing poor, working poor and homeless people. We stand categorically opposed to this project. It smacks of race and class discrimination. And as a further continuation of the gentrification of the five. Fabulous. We talk about affordable housing units. I'm on Section eight today and with my voucher I can't afford to live in the neighborhood that I was born and raised in for 62 years. 62 years and now I can't live in the neighborhood I grew up in because the cost of the rent is beyond my budget. And that just doesn't impact me. That impacts all folks in my neighborhood was born and raised there, and now we're scattered all over the city, living in Wheat Ridge, Littleton, Aurora, and a neighborhood that was 90% African-American is now down to less than 20%. These are the intended, quote unquote, consequences of your actions over a period of time over the last 15 years. Now. I don't know about you guys, but imagine if you were in my shoes and this was happening in your neighborhood and you were going around sites such as this where you have no black folks working there in the construction. No black folks internal in the upper management of this development company. And now we have a miniature version of South African. So who is this really for? As if we don't pay taxes. And then you use federal funds to do this with. And then you're going to have a unanimous vote here tonight in support of the project. Because the horse is out the barn now. So we go through this dog and pony show. To make it look as if. There's some fairness and justice in this. And then right around the corner, we got Martin Luther King's birthday. We're getting ready to celebrate. And I watch all the y'all sit there and participate in his legacy as he flip flops in his great. It's a shame. And it's okay because this is all short lived. Because as the next mayor of the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 0: Mr. SACA. Mr. SACA, Mr. Sector Union. Thank you, Mr. SACA. All right, that concludes our speakers. Any questions from members of council?
Speaker 8: Catwoman Ortega I have one question for Tracy, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. So as a city, we traditionally use the TIFF tool tax increment financing for commercial projects more so than residential. So can you give us some examples of other residential projects that we have used TIFF for?
Speaker 10: Certainly we have a a rather, rather lengthy list, including the existing project that is along the Welton Corridor, the 2300 Welton, which is 100% affordable residential in downtown. We have a number of specific tax increment supported projects that include ground floor retail, but the upper floors, many of the historic buildings that were repurposed include affordable housing. So the Denver Dry Goods buildings, the buildings that are part of the Mercantile Square Project, Boston Lofts Guaranty Bank Building. So again, a number of projects downtown have had a mixture of residential as well as commercial projects such as City Park South was primarily residential, St Luke's primarily residential. So it's not unusual for us to use tax increment financing to support residential projects.
Speaker 8: So I don't remember if I heard you say that this does include any commercial component. So this is consistent with what we've done. Yes. In other areas that has the ground floor with commercial in the housing.
Speaker 10: Yes, there's about 3500 square feet of planned commercial space in this project.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. I'd like to make a comment, but I'll wait till the comment period. Yes.
Speaker 0: If I. Katzenberg seven questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. Mr. President, we call upon the earth, the development crew, the developer here. And and, Paul, can you talk a little bit about the commercial, the retail aspect that you guys are thinking about for this site? And then, as most of you all know, this Five Points is a historical kind of community. And we really asked folks who are coming in and in a part of the development to to really reach back and think about us. I want you to kind of talk about the naming of this this building in this development and and how that's a part of the history. Well, thank you, Mr.. Councilman Brooks, President and members of City Council. We're excited about the retail presence in this project. And then in addition to that, we are in the process of working on a few other projects in the neighborhood that we hope to provide even additional retail. And so I only mention that because we kind of look at this as.
Speaker 4: Kind of we want to look at.
Speaker 1: All the needs and services that would be attractive to the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 1: And make sure that they all fit and they all.
Speaker 4: Function properly. And so we're in the process right now.
Speaker 1: Of moving forward with the retail space and kind of. And we've always made a promise to the citizens of the neighborhood that we really want this amenity to them, that we want this to serve them and be something of their interest. We even plan to do.
Speaker 4: A process.
Speaker 1: Where we can collect ideas and collect some of their thoughts and needs. So as of today, we don't have any specific tenant suggested, but we do foresee.
Speaker 4: There to be you know, it could be one large retail space, but more than likely two.
Speaker 1: Spaces. So we're excited for that. And then in regard to the naming, we.
Speaker 4: Kind of found a gem that you don't always find when you're, you know, doing development. And we started looking into the.
Speaker 1: Site and we we discovered that there.
Speaker 4: Was formerly on.
Speaker 1: This site, which is currently.
Speaker 4: Dirt.
Speaker 1: A Phillis Wheatley YWCA on the site. And for those who don't know, Phillis Wheatley.
Speaker 4: Was the first African-American female and she.
Speaker 1: Was actually a slave and eventually emancipated and eventually emancipated.
Speaker 4: And she wrote short writing poetry.
Speaker 1: And she actually.
Speaker 4: Was it took the court.
Speaker 1: Because they thought there was no way that was possible for an African-American female at the time. And she was found innocent, obviously. And those of like George Washington have praised her poetry and such. And so we're really looking forward to really representing her.
Speaker 4: And what she's.
Speaker 1: About with this project. And also, that's the namesake for the project.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank Catherine Brooks. Any questions for 1101? C nine public hearing is now closed on for comments. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, I think for city council to two plus years ago, we were here going over this urban renewal area, attempting to try and get a new kind of vision for what the historic Five Points in Welton was to become. And it's really exciting to see. This is the third project actually. You'll see two today and 23. Welton came by about four or five months ago, which was 225 affordable units. And I'm glad someone talked about Section eight housing vouchers because 2300 Welton, which would be the new development just breaking ground except Section eight vouchers. So we're really excited about this. And I think Tracy really underscored the important point. A mix of housing is what we're really looking for on Welton. You can't find the type of mix of housing anywhere in the city like you can in Welton, and 30% of all of our rental units, all of them are affordable in Section eight. And so this 80% am-I level, which many of you are trying to do your calculations at home, is between the 40 and $60,000 range a year, depending on the number of people you have in your household, is a missing component in this neighborhood. There are actually a ton of units available. Very low vacant vacancy, understandably, for the 30 to 60% am-I. But we need we need more. And that's been addressed. But, you know, the last development, major development on Welton was the Point Project in 2001. And that's where Coffee at the Point is right now. And to see 14 years later, we finally are getting a development off the ground is really exciting. And to know that it meets some of the needs of the neighborhood is really exciting. Paul Bucks You don't need to do any outreach to the community. I can tell you what they want right now. And it's a fresh food grocer as a retail spot in your building. So they told me to tell you that. But you know, we're really excited about this development. The community engagement process on this was lengthy. This is within the historical landmark district. So this this this developer went through an entire process with both Curtis Park Five Points Community and San Rafael to make sure that this was the right type of building, the historic nature of it , and making sure that it met the needs of many folks in the community. So we're really excited. This is just the beginning now. This is just the second project. You will see Tracy Huggins up here many more times because the market is here and now we have some cool redevelopment ideas in the future. So I hope that you all will be voting for this as this fits the guidelines of many of the plans laid out in front of city council in the city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to express my support for this project as well. We have seen lots of different projects on the one street corridor coming forward, and we're seeing some transformation of that part of downtown. And you know that the downtown Denver Partnership has been working to expand, you know, the what we've known as the Silver Triangle in that area of the city for quite some time. The need for affordable housing is important. And although some might think that 80% is not low enough, as Councilman Brooks said, having a mix of income levels becomes really important. I know over a course of time we've seen some changes with some of the housing that existed in this area. But the kind of changes that are occurring that bring some of the retail to the community is also important because I know in in this area, some of those services have not been available for for a long time. And so some of these projects are bringing those services to the community while at the same time, by creating the opportunity for Section eight units within some of these different buildings, it's still keeping many of the same people in the community and bringing in other people that will help support part of that retail that is being brought forward. So Tracy, to you and your board and the team of people who have worked with you both, Tracey's actually, I want to commend you both on your efforts. And obviously, Councilman Brooks, your leadership in working with the community is is important. So I'm happy to support this moving forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Mr. President, my comments were very similar to Councilwoman Ortega's. To compare and contrast earlier, we had called out a bill for a large site with a single master developer and being able to kind of have a mix of affordability in an area where you have one person kind of doing some of the planning is one thing. But to try to have the mix of projects in an area like Welton where you have separate owners, really does rely on the leadership. And I just you know, that leadership Councilman Ortega named him. You know, it's Councilman Brooks. It's it's Tracy Huggins with Dora and Tracy with the Five Points Business District that you wouldn't think necessarily would have a mission to be looking out for this housing mix. But you have been at every affordable housing discussion that I've held and many others, making sure that the business district has a voice in that diversity of housing . And so just kudos on that. And the one other thing I wanted to add for those who may be concerned about this level of affordability not being deep enough, the thing that's really important about the this level of affordability isn't so much necessarily that it's deeply affordable, but it's that the folks who live in are guaranteed against rent increases outside their income range. It's not impossible, perhaps, to find market rate units at some of these prices, but what will happen over time is prices will go up and those folks who are there will end up moving. We've seen that, you know, time and time again where people have to move every six months or a year because of price increases. So the important thing and the thing that I appreciate is that even though this isn't the deepest level of affordability, it will be guaranteed. So the people who live there can count on it. And that's really a valuable asset for our community, along with the kind of housing we built at 2300. Welcome. So thank you for the thoughtfulness that you all put in together in structuring this, and I'm happy to support it this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kathryn Brooks.
Speaker 1: Nothing, you know, and I just got to throw some support into the Office of Economic Development is never get the credit. But they these guys invested in this project so that we could keep these affordable units affordable and so that we could make this project pencil out. So thank you guys so much for your vision around the city, your device around the city. And it's it's it's very much appreciated. So obviously economic development. Paul Washington and crew. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. All right. Any comments on 1101? And then we'll be voting on this companion bill 1102 right after Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Oracle Brooks. Yeah, but. But she is sorry.
Speaker 1: Watching the game.
Speaker 6: Can each have.
Speaker 3: Can each layman i Lopez Monteiro Nevett I Ortega, i rob Shepherd. I Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary, please go to the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: Tonight.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes 11. No one has been placed more on fine consideration and does pass. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put 1102 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 8: Absolutely, Mr. President, I move that council will love no to be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: We're going to wait for technology to catch up on our screens. And while that's come in, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: I interrupt for a second is 11 minute 1103.
Speaker 0: No. 1102 It's a companion bill to 1101 we're.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, where is it listed.
Speaker 0: With on Bill's for final consideration.
Speaker 7: And it's not under the public. Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, we'll move. We need a second on the screen. Got the second. Any comments, Councilman Brooks, did you have an additional comment?
Speaker 1: Vote for this too, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call works.
Speaker 3: I. Can each Lehmann high. Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. Ortega. I. Rob Shepherd. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. Secretary, please close the Vali Nasr results tonight. Tonight's 1102 has placed the have been placed on final consideration and does pass. Okay. Our second public hearing is going to be on 1103. But just to let councilmembers know after that, we will be voting on 1104, which is a companion bill to that one. Councilman Ortega, will you please put 1103 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an Ordinance authorizing and approving an amendment to the Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the 2460 Welton Street Project and to Create the 2460 Welton Street Property Tax Increment Area
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves an amendment to the Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan for the 2460 Welton Street Project in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-16-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01122015_14-1103
|
Speaker 0: Councilman Ortega, will you please put 1103 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I move the Council Bill 1103 of 2014 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second seconded public hearing on 1103 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Me again. Mr. President, members of council, you are going to hear me repeat, much of which you just heard me say, because this is an amendment to the same urban redevelopment area and state statute requires that there be a public hearing on each amendment. So bear with me as you going to say, gosh, didn't I just hear that? And the answer will be, yes, you did just hear that. But I'm obliged to go through it again, and I will try to do it as quickly as possible. So the Walton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan was approved by council in September of 2012. In doing so, you found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan was in conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan 20 and its applicable supplements. While the Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing, TIF cannot be used until it is specifically approved for a project. Therefore, Debra is here this evening requesting City Council's consideration of an amendment to the Walton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the 2801 Walton Street Project and create the 2801 Welton Street Property Tax Increment Area and sales tax increment area. The Urban Redevelopment area was established to encourage redevelopment along the Welland corridor. The Urban Redevelopment area is comprised of approximately 29 blocks, generally and approximately bounded by Broadway Street on the West Glenarm Place and 24th Avenue on the South Downing Street on the east and on the north by either California street or the alley between Welton and California streets. At the time the plan was originally approved, no projects were identified. However, the plan allowed for future projects to request tax, income and assistance and contemplated tax increment areas would be approved as projects were brought forward within the area to date. Following the outcome of the last public hearing, two projects have now been approved. The Affordable Housing Development at 2300 Welton and the mixed use predominantly residential project at 2460 Welton. The project, being considered through an amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan in this public hearing is the redevelopment of the site located at 2460 Welton Street. The project site, which includes a 5000 square foot vacant structure, is located at the northwest corner of 28th Street and Welton Street. The building was built in 1895 and has had a variety of uses over the years, including a tavern, a hotel and an apartment complex. The building is credited with being instrumental in the Five Points jazz scene as it once served as home to Rice's tap taphouse and played host to musicians. The last tenant of the building occupied the first floor until 2011. Thereafter, a nonprofit was allowed to use a portion of the first floor until the use was suspended due to code violations. This is not the first floor. This is the second floor. The proposed project will renovate the entire building and bring its history and heritage back to life. The renovation calls for demolishing the interior of the building, stabilizing the existing structure, exposing the brick which has been plastered over adding windows which have been removed or hidden over the years, and with it modern standards. It is intended that the first floor, totaling approximately 2500 square feet, will be occupied by a destination restaurant. The second floor, again, approximately 2500 square feet, will be marketed as unique office space. The Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizes TURA to finance projects within the urban redevelopment area by the use of tax increment financing. The Urban Redevelopment Plan Amendment will add the 2801 Welton Street Property Tax Increment Area and sales tax increment area during staff has reviewed the budgets and performance submitted by the developer and believes there is a financing gap in the project of $350,000. This financing gap will be addressed through property tax and sales tax increment generated by the redevelopment of the property. The site is currently owned by the developer who is paying approximately $5,200 per year in property taxes. This amount will constitute the base taxes from which property tax increment will be calculated. Given that the building is vacant, there is no sales tax currently being generated. Upon completion, the project is projected to generate approximately $50,000 per year in net property and sales tax increment area. These incremental tax revenues will be used to reimburse the developer for eligible expenses of $350,000 over 25 years. As noted previously, City Council found the Urban Redevelopment Plan to be in conformance with the Denver comp plan 2000 and its applicable supplements. Accordingly, any amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan must also be in conformance with the Urban Redevelopment Plan objectives to maintain the continuing conformance with comp plan 2000. The general objectives of the Western Corridor 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 Whelton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan to eliminate the present and growing factors which contribute to the blight in the urban redevelopment area. To renew and improve the character and environment of the urban redevelopment 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 can draw economic strength to encourage land use patterns within the urban redevelopment area, which will reduce dependance upon private automobiles for transportation, to encourage land use patterns within the urban redevelopment area that result in a more environmentally sustainable city. To encourage the participation of existing property owners within the urban redevelopment area in the redevelopment of their property, encourage the re-use of existing buildings where appropriate, including historic preservation and adaptive reuse, and to promote a diverse, sustainable neighborhood economy, including mixed use and commercial development opportunities along the redevelopment area. Again, there are another a number of findings that city council must find in making this urban redevelopment plan amendment. Those include a finding that the 2801 Welton Street Project is located within the 29 BLOCK Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area, and will promote the objectives set forth in the Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan that a feasible method exists for the 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 building, no business concerns will be displaced by the project. 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 Welton Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Area . On December 5th, 2014, which is at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. The statute requires that no more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the Plan Amendment. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on this Urban Redevelopment Plan Amendment. The statute also requires that two years must elapse before council can 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 an Urban Redevelopment Plan amendment for this project. Also, the plan amendment contains no property that was included in a previously submitted urban redevelopment plan amendment that was not approved by the City Council. As such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months since any prior public hearing is inapplicable. Conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. On December 3rd, 2014, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the proposed amendment to the Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to the Denver Comprehensive Plan and applicable supplements. A letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing, and during request the Council find and concur with that finding. A planning board in the Welton Corridor, 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 Welton Corridor. Urban Redevelopment Area by Private Enterprise SMP 2801 Welton LLC, a subsidiary of Star Mesa Properties LLC, is the owner and a private development entity who intends to undertake the redevelopment project. This amendment to the Walton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan contains provisions for property tax increment financing. Accordingly, Denver Public Schools District Number one has been permitted to participate in an advisory capacity with respect to the inclusion in the plan of the tax allocation provisions authorized by Section 31 does 25, DASH 107 and nine of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. Finally, the city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the 2801 Welton Street Urban Redevelopment Project area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and Doura to address additional infrastructure requirements and city services should they arise. Again, we're very pleased to be working with the city. And with the Five Points Business District and with the developer in bringing this project forward. The redevelopment of this site and the adaptive reuse of a 100 plus year old building into mixed use space, including restaurant and office space, is wholly consistent with the redevelopment vision of the Welton Street corridor, a corridor that has seen limited development activity in many years. Its proximity to and presence along an existing transit corridor captures many city wide goals, objectives and strategies that are found in the comp plan. The Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan and the Wilton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan. This project, particularly taken in connection with the two other residential projects along the corridor, begins to put together the pieces necessary for a vibrant community. We ask for your favorable consideration of this amendment, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Higgins. We have two speakers for this one. Traci Winchester You may come on up and begin your remarks, followed by Mr. Sekou.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the City Council. My name is Tracy Winchester. I reside at 217 South Jackson Street, but I am the executive director of the Five Points Business District. At 2444 Washington Street and had been the executive director since 2011. As I mentioned in the previous project that we did put together a revitalization study that was funded by HUD, and we had six urban planners that developed the strategy that came out in 2013, August of 2013. And one of the guiding principles in that plan was preserving our historic cultural district, that it is a valuable asset for the neighborhood, and that to keep history and culture visible within the district by balancing the preservation of the district culture with new development. I can't tell you how happy we are about this development. This beloved building resonates in this community. I mean, really? BJ's Port authorizes hotel pub. I mean, it has had so many names and so many iterations over the years and the history is still alive and well and everyone is excited about this developer Stamas coming in and preserving this property. What is interesting, although it is in the cultural district, the historic cultural district, it is not a contributing building. As you know, a contributing building means it cannot be torn down. Well, even though they had the option, it was never even put out there for consideration. Their whole intent was to preserve the history of this building. And so we couldn't be any happier than to have this developer come in and redevelop this building and bring it back to its life and the history that it has enjoyed over 100 years. So without much ado, I just give full support and I encourage you all to please support this historic district, this historic building within our urban renewal district, because, again, it's part of the bigger vision, the wider vision to have new development, as well as preserving our history and our culture here on the Welty Street corridor. Thank you again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Miss Winchester. It's your second.
Speaker 11: There was a song that was popular the 1980s called Another One Bites the Dust. Slowly but surely, the buildings are being preserved. And they're going to be nice and pretty interesting and the bricks are going to be blasted. But now who now owns the building? I think the ownership has changed culturally from black to white, and then there's going to be a restaurant in there or proposed. Now, one of the criticisms of this plan that we had with this thing that everybody's up on board for was there was a overabundance of barbershops and beauty shops and under-development down here on the Five Points. And now we got an overlay of nothing but restaurants and bars come. There's no mix in economic development going down here. So you tell me where in the plant that's at. And then we have these organizations in our neighborhood. And it's no criticism of Tracy because she don't live in a neighborhood. She lives in Cherry Creek making policy decisions for our neighborhood that she don't even live in or have any historical relationship to the building or the neighborhood. So what outpost is she working for? Because most of these developers are coming from outside our neighborhood. So we're at the black economic development for the black community happening in the black community. Hmm. Thank you. Yeah, it's crying. It makes me want to sneeze, too, because when it's all said and done. You have a phasing out of a culture and now you're getting ready to turn black folks into museum relics where this is the building they used to be in. And this is a neighborhood that used to be kind of like Arapaho Forest, but this is where the Indians used to be. But then they're eaten and left. And there's something very dehumanizing about that. There's something very criminal about that. I think there's a United Nations law against ethnic cleansing and gentrification. It's called genocide. Removing populations with pencil and pen and government audiences. And then folks go to jail for that. I think the guy in Yugoslavia went to jail for that. What he did to Croatia. But you're missing the prosecution because you haven't been brought on the carpet for the work that you're doing. And it's okay because you're going to vote unanimously for this, too.
Speaker 0: Mr. Speaker, your 3 minutes are up.
Speaker 11: Thank you. And thank you for you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your time. You. We do appreciate that as well. That is all the speakers. Time for questions of members of council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Just two questions. Tracy Huggins. You don't need to bring all that up there. I just I just I think I missed the year that this building was developed in 1895. Wow. Okay. Thank you. That's it. And then I'm going to invite, if you don't mind, Mr. President, Kelly Slater up here from Star Mesa. And I just have a couple questions for you on. Can you just give us an idea of, you know, the restaurant type? I mean, maybe you can't see everything. And then when do you guys plan to start redevelopment?
Speaker 6: Yeah. So I'm Kelly Slater from Star based Properties. Thank you for.
Speaker 5: Being here today. So we're really excited.
Speaker 8: About a restaurant.
Speaker 7: Going in maybe two ways. We haven't exactly picked out a restaurant tenant, but we think it would be perfect for a destination type.
Speaker 5: Idea with the light rail being in there and.
Speaker 7: It's proximity to downtown, it's actually only a about a ten block walk from the central business district. So it could be a nice place for people to go after work. So we are exploring.
Speaker 5: A lot of options for different tenants.
Speaker 1: Right. And in the time that you guys are thinking about oh yes.
Speaker 7: We are hoping to start construction in March or April.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Tracy Higgins, can you clarify if the tool of that Dora has the authority to use of eminent domain has been used at all in this in any of the in this particular project or the last one that we just talked about?
Speaker 10: No, it has not. In fact, we are not authorized under the urban redevelopment plan to use eminent domain. We would have to come back to council to get that. But it is not been used on any of the three projects that.
Speaker 5: We have brought.
Speaker 10: Forward for council.
Speaker 8: So any of the current ownership or previous ownership were willing sellers to who the existing developers may be on these projects?
Speaker 10: Yes, they have all been brought to us as as that transaction has already occurred between the purchaser in the seller.
Speaker 8: I just want to clarify that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And the questions on 11 03c non public hearing, 1103 is closed time for comments. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. And actually, I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for for bringing that up. This property was owned by Charlie Cousins. And since, you know, Charlie Cousins was a huge business owner in the area and has since passed and was owned by his daughter, Dr. René Cousins, and they own quite a bit of property on Walton. And you know, as someone who is has been down there for years, they actually want to see development get going and some of their properties, they thought that it would be advantageous for them to sell. So this was all kind of willing participants. But again, this is the third project of our urban renewal area. And, you know, I keep I keep bringing this up. We we.
Speaker 5: Passed.
Speaker 1: The formation of the area in September 2012. Here we are in January 2015. And there are projects that are going through there. And and let me just let the public know and let let the folks up here know something that doesn't get advertised enough. But I think in the five points area we get criticized a lot for is the indigenous ownership. What is the percentage of indigenous ownership that's on Walton? Has anybody answered that question? Well, it's 55%. And I heard in a meeting the other day that it was 10% ownership in the area. And it is pretty spectacular seeing that there is indigenous ownership for 50 years who are still redeveloping their properties, revisioning their properties because they're working with the five points, the business district with Tracy Winchester, who is going door to door, working with folks, making sure that they get every tool available to them by the city of Denver . And so I just want to make that clear, but we're very excited for Kelly and her team coming in and giving us another use some more office space and something that doesn't get talked about a lot using tax increment financing dollars for the preservation of a building that they didn't need to preserve. But I can tell you right now, there are residents all over this area that if you to torn it down, there have been another 300 emails for me and, you know, all this other stuff. But thank you for having a very. Vision for the area saying we want to have adaptive reuse. We would love to rethink kind of this building and this this whole area. So we look forward to to the restaurant. I know you say that there's some other space that potentially could be used for something else. Have I ever mentioned this grocery store idea? On what? It could be amazing. Fresh produce. It's tough to get a salad on Welton. And so this could be a great opportunity. I'm just saying. But thank you so much for your investment and where we are. We're excited about the future and council and folks in the public. You will not see every development come up front in front of council, but there 6 to 7 more redevelopment opportunities that we're really excited about coming up in the next eight months. Traces, traces and I's favorite word is $200 million of redevelopment is coming on Welton in 2015, which is extraordinary and it's because of all of the partners. OED Urban Renewal, Denver Urban Renewal Authority, the city, everyone has just been great. And so I want to thank my colleagues as well and I hope you'll support this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to add an exclamation point to the historic preservation side of this, to everyone involved from Duryea to Tracy Winchester to Councilman Brooks, and particularly the property owners. That vision for what the building is going to look like is pretty exciting and a real treasure.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Um, Councilwoman Chabot.
Speaker 7: Oh, thank you. I just wanted to clarify with Councilman Brooks what he means by indigenous ownership. Usually when the word indigenous is used, I think of it as native peoples. So I just want to be clear that I understand what you mean when you say that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So indigenous to this street in this neighborhood would be African-Americans and Latino individuals who actually own the property in this neighborhood. So that's it's exciting, exciting news for us as we went in and actually went by from and we're talking about let me clarify this. We're talking from 23rd and Welton all the way to Downey. And so it's it's very exciting.
Speaker 7: I think.
Speaker 0: All right. Any other comments on 11 03c None. Madam Secretary, Rocco Brooks.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Can each layman. Lopez Monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Rob. Hi, Shepherd. Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and ask the results tonight. Tonight's 1103 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass now. Council. We're going to vote on the companion bill 1104. Councilman Ortega, could you please put 1104 to be placed on final consideration and do pass I.
Speaker 8: Move that council bill 1104 series of 24 be adopted on final.
Speaker 0: Yeah you said 2004 I make sure it correct corrected 2014.
Speaker 8: I'm sorry I didn't mean 2014.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved in second and seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Brooks.
Speaker 1: Yes, I sorry.
Speaker 3: Can each layman. Lopez Montero, Nevett I Ortega, I Rob I Shepherd. Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary. Please close the door. You announce the results tonight. Tonight's 1104 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. All right, we are halfway there. We're now moving on to Council Bill 1071. Councilman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1071 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an Ordinance authorizing and approving an amendment to the Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the 2801 Welton Street Project and to Create the 2801 Welton Street Property Tax Increment Area and the 2801 Welton Street Sales Tax Increment Area
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves an amendment to the Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan for the 2801 Welton Street Project in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-16-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01122015_14-1071
|
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary. Please close the door. You announce the results tonight. Tonight's 1104 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. All right, we are halfway there. We're now moving on to Council Bill 1071. Councilman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1071 on the floor?
Speaker 8: I move that council bill 1071 of 2014 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second and their council bills 1071 to 374 and 1080 approve zoning map amendments. This Council is required by law to conduct hearings on this, and Council's actions are subject to a court review in order to provide a record for the court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presenting to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. We will be doing a combined public hearing for 1071, 1072, 1073 and 1074, which is now open. Speakers may address in your speakers may address any or all of the council bills. At the conclusion of the public hearing, council will vote separately on each of them. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Mr. President, members of council David Gasper is with Community Planning and Development. Also with me today is Brandon House of DIA. If you have any idea specific questions, he can help answer those. We're here to have a rezoning for DIA own parcels in the piano transportation corridor. All four parcels are in Council District 11. Three of them are in the Gateway Green Valley Ranch neighborhood. One is in DIA neighborhood, a combined acreage of over 162 acres. Map here shows all four of them. We'll run through each one of these, but we'll start on the north with what we use. Application number. Here's a to keep things clear. There's not clear addresses to some of these 65 and working our way down so 00065 is essentially at the 61st and patio station area between Pangea Boulevard and Tower Road on north of 56 and south of 64th. So it's right there at the station for the future. East Rail Line opening up in 2016. Next, moving south is 00066, which is on the west side of Pangea between Grand Valley Ranch and 56. You see Parkfield there on the just to the west of this property. 67 actually straddles Pioneer Boulevard on both sides. It is south of Green Valley Ranch. And then 68, the further south is down by airport way and 40th, essentially the intersection of I-70 and Pinion Boulevard and. The request tonight in front of you is to rezone all four parcels. They are all vacant and undeveloped. They're all owned by. The intent here is really to provide consistent zoning for all DA owned land in the transportation corridor. On top of that 00065. That's the one at 61st. And Panya would also carry forward the airport influence overlay zone on that parcel. So the actual zoning or going to the DIA Zone District was created as part of the 2010 citywide rezoning, specifically for this purpose for DIA owned parcels and the influence area area overlay zone actually comes from the former. Chapter 59 has been around for a while. The intent there was to limit uses a near DIA that could be been in conflict with airport activity, avoiding having residential too close essentially today, similar to how we had issues at Stapleton. So I'll quickly run through existing zoning, land use, building performance scale and most importantly, I think what the PENNER Boulevard Transportation Corridor means to these four parcels, mostly a mix of former Chapter 59 mixed use zoning. That's a CMU ten, 20 and 30. And Alpha PD's out in this area. There is some new code mixed use zones, mainly towards the south in the 5 to 8 story range, again starting on the north side with the parcel at 61st and Panya. Again, it's vacant. Closest development is actually across Tower Road to the east, over a half mile away with some townhomes and I believe a hotel 66 on the west side of Panya. Parkfield is the closest development. Again, vacant. 67. Again vacant. Closest development is kind of the office, hotel and some apartments to the south west. And finally, 68, a same kind of complex of airport related uses to the West is the closest development. In building performance scale, low density, low scale suburban building forms, multifamily, some hotels and offices in the 3 to 5 story range. And as I mentioned, probably of of importance here, the Pinion Boulevard transportation corridor and the scenic buffer. So if you look at this map, everything in the crosshatch is within the transportation corridor that was created when the idea was being planned for. And intent was to maintain the transportation function of Panya to make sure that it was ability to get to the airport. The green border that is overlaid on top of that hashing there is this scenic buffer. So as a subset of the transportation corridor, within the scenic buffer, essentially the land is treated as open space and is developable. It's important to note, because the bottom three parcels you see there are within that scenic buffer. So no development will occur on those three parcels at all. The fourth one, the one at 64 some panya is in the transportation corridor but outside of the buffer. So development can occur on that property. But that is where the overlay zone is applied and limits the type of residential uses that can occur at that site. So running through a process quickly planning board was in November. We went through a subcommittee in early December and we're here with you tonight for the public hearing. I have the wrong date there. I apologize. Typical public outreach occurred with the Arnaud's and was notified properly. We did not receive any comments. I will run through the review criteria, mainly focusing on consistency with adopted plans. Out here we have comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint Denver, the Gateway Concept Plan from the early nineties as well as the most recent stationary plan and GDP for City First and Pana to consider for consistency with adopted plans. Generally speaking, strong consistency with adopted plans here, especially with the mobility objective of air transportation. And then as with the 64 something as site land use mobility strategies that encourage TOD in walkable neighborhoods because it's in that scenic buffer blueprint, Denver did not actually attach a feature length designation to these bottom three or southernmost properties. But with the 60 person panel one, we do have the more recent stationary plan that recommended transit oriented development and designated this as an area of change and specifically had a mix of land uses there between eight and 12 storeys in height for this property and that de zoning would allow that to occur. The general development plan also called for a dense, walkable, mixed use community community at this site. So there's consistency with the GDP that was just finished mid 2014. So CPD does find consistency with adopted plans for these four rezonings. There's also a unit for uniformity of basic regulations. We're actually creating a situation here where we have DI zoning consistently through the transportation corridor for property that's owned by DIA, furthers public health, safety and welfare. We're maintaining open space and creating opportunities for TOD. Just trying. Circumstances are the same for the Southern three properties and since that there has been change or changing conditions, the previous zoning out predated the airport actually there and the de zone district wasn't created till 2010. They weren't brought over because they were pads or had waivers and conditions with the property. I think for some, Hannah, it's actually a mistake to fact the intention 2010 was to zone all down property to DIA, but the state went from OTU to O.C. so that was a mistake. My mistake to fact. Excuse me. With the consistency, with context and zone district. There is no neighborhood context as the airport, but there is clear district intent with the DIA zone district that is for DIA own property. So it's consistently under their purvey. And so with that, CPD recommends approval of all four and requests.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have two speakers for these bills. First one is Mr. Sake. Who? And then Josh Bieber.
Speaker 11: Yes. Chairman Sekou blacks are actually movement self-defense. You know, this is my most enjoyable moments when these kind of presentations are given, because I'll guarantee you the people that was watching this on TV don't have a clue about anything you just said not one word. So I'm opposed to this thing for the lack of clarity for the listening public that's paying for this. And we are. So I would like for you to please. Any one of you, city council people, all of you come together and have a group huddle to please break this down as to what he's talking about so that we will know basically, right from what I gather, the only thing they want to do consistency with the zoning on it. And so they're going through a technical thing to get this thing done. But there's not going to really be nothing done there because they're doing some things with the airport and it's a no fly zone. Is that what you told me? Somebody help me out.
Speaker 0: Images of Mr. Josh Bieber.
Speaker 1: Good evening, counsel. I would like to speak on this so that.
Speaker 4: I can see how you want.
Speaker 1: They want to build more and stuff. I agree. If those three councils.
Speaker 0: Are there that it's kind of confusing.
Speaker 1: Why don't they just, like, put the cost into, like, hybrid fuel and electric planes and solar panels on the planes and stuff like that and using it and not.
Speaker 4: Using high.
Speaker 1: Costly gas and stuff like that. I, I agree with them that it's kind of confusing.
Speaker 0: And so that was my.
Speaker 1: Kind of question comment.
Speaker 0: I think that.
Speaker 1: That was the comment and a question.
Speaker 0: And at the same time. Great. Could you say your name for the record?
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. My name is Joshua Bieber.
Speaker 0: Right. 1259 Avenue.
Speaker 4: Albion Street.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Well, that concludes our speakers. Time for questions from members of council. So I'm not taken.
Speaker 8: So I'd like to have the map pulled back up. That shows us the northernmost boundary. I'm trying to pull that on here. And it's not giving me the the full scope of. All those shots. Some of the that one's good for right now. So some of the work that we've seen related to the development. Right at that location. So how much of that was already reasoned? I mean, we see so many of these people that it's hard to understand, you know, the big picture of what we're dealing with. So. Help me understand what you've got shaded in yellow on this one. How that's different from what we've already approved.
Speaker 4: Well, in this location here, which is. So this map is from the 60 person and Panya stationary plan, which we adopted last January. Actually, it recommends a land use and building heights in that plan. But there has not been a rezoning since that time in this area.
Speaker 8: So this is the only parcel of that whole plan that we're changing the zoning?
Speaker 4: That's correct, yeah.
Speaker 8: Will we be seeing other parcels in that development come forward with different zone changes?
Speaker 4: Yes. CPD does anticipate that the property owners that are in the station area plan area will come forward with rezonings here in the future.
Speaker 8: So that's that's part of the confusion, is seeing them all piecemeal as opposed to the plan, looking at what the zoning is for the different parcels to help us understand, you know, sort of the scope and scale of what can can be with that site.
Speaker 4: We would also anticipate that that would any other rezoning in this area would come all at once, essentially. So there's essentially three property owners outside of DIA that are within the station area, and they have been working together. So to support a rezoning that would come together. All three property owners at the same time. So there's some sort of consistency.
Speaker 8: So they're not pushing. They didn't all come together. Excuse me. Is there a reason all of them haven't come together as one?
Speaker 4: That'd be up to the applicants there. It's, you know, they're property owners and they have just not moved forward with a rezoning at this time.
Speaker 8: Okay. I'd like to ask the DIA representative in question. So I think maybe this map might be good, but can you show me? And if it's not this map, maybe one of the others. If you could pull it up where the lda noise contour is on dere property. Yeah, probably now, but.
Speaker 2: This might be the closest. Yeah. I don't have anything.
Speaker 8: That might be good.
Speaker 4: We don't have the contours of Brendan House, the Planning Office. We don't have the contours shown on this map. But within the entire 61st and the general development plan, stationary plan area, the contours are not within.
Speaker 1: That area whatsoever.
Speaker 4: They are to the north.
Speaker 8: That's not what I remember us being told when the whole station area plan was brought forward. That part of the noise contour included part of the development. And we're trying to understand is if any of the residential and I'm understanding it's going to be rental, not for sale housing. You can clarify that if I'm wrong about that. If if that if the housing is included within that area yet.
Speaker 4: I believe it's since I was a project manager on the station area plan, I can kind of talk a little bit more about that. So Brandon is correct. The the noise contours do not lay go that far south, essentially. So they're farther north. But the airport influence overlay zone, that air air overlay, which is kind of that pink there is actually what's regulating the land uses within that 60% panel to limit the type of residential development that can occur. So that overlay zoning does not allow a single family north of 56 and does not allow multifamily north of 62nd. But that's outside of the noise contours that would be typically applied to the airport. These are actually further south that we're being.
Speaker 8: I would like someone to provide me the actual LDA noise contour map so I can look at that and be able to determine that. Because I remember asking this question when we did the planning the area plan for this area. And I recall somebody saying that the the noise contour line had changed. And I don't know what justified that change. So I don't know if you can address that.
Speaker 4: Can explain it in a I'm not an expert on it, but a general overview. The noise contour lines year to year to year change slightly depending on the number of flights. But then there's also adopted noise contour lines. The adopted noise contour lines are for maximum build out of the airport in future runways. So a future southern runway that has not been developed yet would be the closest runway to this area. But it's not expected that that runway will be for another 30 years, it's estimated.
Speaker 8: But what is going to drive the other and I mean, the primary focus of the airport is to operate as an airport. And so are we saying that by allowing residential development that close to what would be, you know, one of our airfields, you know, it may be the last one. It may be the next one. You know, I don't know what the schedule in the pecking order is of which one is going to go next. But, you know, I just don't want to see us put Denver in a situation where I very clearly remember Denver being sued by Park Hill, by Commerce City because of noise issues . And they know some of the technology is changing on the planes and a lot of that kind of stuff. But there was a lot of careful consideration when this land was purchased and where those contour lines were were set. And so that's why I'm raising these questions.
Speaker 4: Sure. And I'd be happy to provide that map to you. And the airport influence overlay is kind of an extra layer of protection in that area. And that's why it was adopted to provide the protection from single family houses being developed specifically and even multi-family at certain point.
Speaker 8: So will this site. And I see it's the the red dot the further north actually have residential within it.
Speaker 4: It's possible you could have multifamily residential in this site. No single family would be allowed.
Speaker 8: But what's making the distinction between allowing single family and multifamily?
Speaker 4: The multifamily building techniques have better sound insulation than the single family homes.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you for answering my questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman, to you. Any other questions for 1071? Seen on public hearing for 1071 is now closed time for comments as the representative for District 11 where these rezonings are moving forward. I was asked in my colleagues to to support these. I have no other comments, any other comments from members of council. All right. We're going to be voting on 1071, two, three and four individually. So we're starting with 1071. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Rob Shepherd. Brooks Kinnick. Lehman. Lopez. Monteiro Nevitt. Hi, Ortega.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I want to tell you I need your vote. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight, 1071 is in place upon final consideration and does pass. Councilwoman Ortega, could you please put 1072 on the floor?
Speaker 8: I move the council bill 1070 to be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second and seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Rob Brooks. I can each layman, Lopez Monteiro Nevett.
Speaker 0: Is left the dais.
Speaker 3: He what? Sorry. Ortega, I. Shepherd. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 99 hours, 1072 have been placed upon final consideration and does pass. Councilwoman Ortega, could you please put 1073 on the floor?
Speaker 8: I move the council. Will 1073 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It's been moved in second and seeing no comment. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Rob Brooks. I can eat lemon. LOPEZ All right. Montero, I. Nevitt, I. Ortega, I. Shepherd Mr. President, hi.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight, 1073 have been placed on final consideration and does pass. Councilman Ortega, could you please put 1074 on the floor.
Speaker 8: And move the council? Will 1074 be placed on final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded the mining sector. Need to correct that seen no comments from members of the council secretary roll call.
Speaker 3: I see the rock I. Brooks I can eat lemon. Lopez.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 3: Montero. I never. I. Ortega. I shepherd. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: Tonight.
Speaker 0: Tonight's 1074 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are up to our last publication, the nine on 1080. Councilwoman Ortega, would you please put 1080 on the floor.
Speaker 8: And move the council bill 1080 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: We're going to wait for technology to catch up so you get a move and a second. Thank you. Public hearing on ten eight is now open. May we have the staff report?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 13.15 Acres Northwest of the intersection of Pena Boulevard & East 40th Avenue. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones a parcel of land located in the Pena Boulevard Transportation Corridor from R-X (Residential, Mixed Use) to DIA Zone District. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-10-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01122015_14-1080
|
Speaker 0: We're going to wait for technology to catch up so you get a move and a second. Thank you. Public hearing on ten eight is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. Good evening, members of council. I'm Steve Daly with community planning and development. This is a rezoning at 3325, ten Argo Street. It's located in northwest Denver and Judy Montero's Council District nine, located in the Five Points statistical neighborhood, better known as River North or Reno. Getting down to the site is located along Tin Argo Street borders, the South Platte River, and it is across the street from the Navajo Market GDP area. The subject site is four acres. There's a warehouse structure on the site, but it is not in use. There's a single owner, Project BRINER. So Project Rhino LLC and the ownership group is represented by Bob Golic. Bob can be here tonight, but the development group is here and they are working group is here and can answer questions. And I believe a signed up to speak at the request is to rezone from I b you oh two. And that means it stands for heavy industrial or industrial general. It's C one of the heaviest is the heaviest industrial zone district in the zoning code. And then you go to allows for billboards. Thank you. The request is to rezone to APD G 12, which I have a lot of letters and numbers there, but that means a planned unit development general and it is the 12th update to come forward and a general PD is basically a standard zoned district and in this case the standards in district is C-Max 12 and the purity deviates from these standards within that zone district. The intent of this property is to utilize the urban center neighborhood context uses and building form standards found in C-Max 12. And that's the urban center neighborhood mixed use and about allowing up to 12 stories the deviations from C C 12 to acknowledge the South Platte River. There is not a street in between this property and the river. So we acknowledge that the river, by transitioning, allowed building height, increasing the transparency, altering the build to requirements, and requiring that the ground story of of the any future development facing the key frontage is have an active use. Also the intent is to anticipate planned infrastructure improvements surrounding the subject site, including future open space and a future realignment of ten Argo Street. This is an image of the general market. GDP in the of the yellow area indicates the subject site for rezoning tonight. It is outside of the ten Argo GDP. The areas in close proximity to the subject site is slated in a phase two of that build out of the GDP. It is slated as open space. Some of the standards in the party and you can find the beauty in your packet is to transition the height from the reverse though, so the development will actually step down to the river. Within the high transition zone, up to eight storeys is allowed and then on the remaining portions of the part of the property, 12 storeys would be allowed. Also the PWD calls out primary street zone lot Frontages. The zone districts are kind of built around the streets that the Zone district faces, so a future development has to address the street with an entrance with transparency or windows along the first floor. This would actually calls out the river frontage as a street, and so future development will have to address the street with an entrance. The PD would not allow parking in between the building and the river. Frontage would require a higher level of windows and transparency along the river's edge in addition to the dynaudio edge and would require active uses on those on those first floors facing these street frontages or river frontage. The the beauty controls that by basically drawing a line from any future development towards these zone lot lines or these the river frontage or the Denaro Street frontage. And if if you come that thick line drawn from future development touches one of these frontages, then that ground floor must be active. It cannot be a parking. So the surrounding site, there's IP on properties to the south and to the west of the site. The river, South Platte River is just to the north, along with some city owned property. And then there's Army 30 with waivers and conditions and pads associated with the to narco GDP. The site is industrial. It's surrounded by other industrial uses of vacant land, some commercial uses, and then some new multi-family residential that has been developed in the scenario GDP. This is these are a few images the top images of the site in the foreground with downtown in the background, there's an image of that new multi-family residential. And then the bottom image is looking north towards the river with the site just to the left of the image. So why opposed zone district? The zoning code allows use of zoning in unique and extraordinary circumstances when standard zoning, at least without multiple variances, waivers or condition, won't result in the desired development pattern form use consistent with the adaptive plans. And also when more zoning flexibility or customization is appropriate to get the desired development pattern form and use. So what are the unique and extraordinary circumstances? In this case? It is. The site is directly adjacent to the South Platte River. There are very few sites in the city that do not have a street in between the site and the river. And therefore that is fairly unique and the river is a gem of the city and the powder does build in requirements to address the river. Also there is some phased development and planned open space so associated with the group. So in return for some flexibility built into the PD, the zoning code requires a significant public benefit that's not achievable through application of a standard zoned district and some examples of a public benefit be things such as diversification in the use of land , the innovation in development, exemplary pedestrian connections and amenities and considerations. There are other examples of a public benefit and these are just a few of them. So what are the public benefits conferred by this? PD It would be those exemplary pedestrian connections requiring that ground source use the entrances along the river's edge and along the narrow street . Also additional quality fence and wall design standards. And then there are development patterns compatible with the nearby areas. So height and build to alterations to transition between the river and future plant open space. And then again, there's no parking allowed between the river and future structures. So this case went to a planning board on December 3rd committee on the 10th of December. We're here tonight. All our no's within 200 feet of the subject site were notified. Signs were posted for this public hearing in the public hearing for planning board. There are six review criteria in the code associated with APD. The first is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to the site. The first is complete in 2000. The plan recommends and promotes infill development, designing mixed use communities, calling for more amenities and a variety of compatible uses. Because we're investing in the neighborhoods and creating and promoting those mixed use communities where folks can live, work and play. Blueprint. DMR recommends mixed use area of change and the goals include high intensity development with a sizable employment base as well as housing. The areas of change are called out as areas where a blueprint desires channeling growth and improving access to jobs, housing and services. Donato Street is a residential collector and Brayton Boulevard is a mixed use arterial and an enhanced transit corridor. Identified in Blueprint Denver, the River North Area Plan adopted in 2003 recommends residential mixed use for this property. Donato Markets placement along the South Platte River in proximity to downtown provides an opportunity to create an exciting mixed use area with its own identity. The plan identifies the Donato Market District as an opportunity for intensive, mixed use development oriented to downtown. Donato Market offers the potential for a significant mixed use development with destination commercial uses anchored by housing and benefiting from its relationship to the river corridor and to downtown. Also on page 76 of the plan in the Urban Design section, a goal specific to the John Argo market area calls for developing urban design standards and guidelines for new development. It calls for those guidelines to require facades on parking structures facing public right of way to accommodate pedestrian active uses on the ground level, which is the beauty standards require also requires. The plan calls for requiring appropriate massing scale and building heights for new development with height limits along the South Platte River. And then the plan also encourages street oriented building placement and architectural variation. CVD finds the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. Development within this beauty will result in uniformity of district regulations. The district would be the PD district and would further, further public health, safety and welfare associated with adopted plans. The justifying circumstances, the land or its surrounding environments has changed or is changing, and to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character of the area. CBD finds. This criterion is met due to the area of change, planned direction and redevelopment occurring in River North consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent. So CMC's 12 the base zone district applies to areas or intersections served primarily by major arterial streets. We're building scale of 312 stories is desired and CBD finds that this criterion is met based on the plan recommendations. Also, additional review criteria for rezoning to PD. The proposed scale and timing of the development project demands more customized zoning approach to achieve a successful phase development to anticipate the realignment of Donato Street and to address future open space along the South Platte River. A custom zoning approach is needed. The General PD complies with all standards and criteria stated in Division 9.6. The beauty district is necessary because there is no zoned district available in the zoning code that requires grounds, ground reactivation, activation along planned open space or the South Platte River. It only applies to existing streets. The General PD district utilizes the same x 12 building forms and uses to ensure land uses, height siting and ground spray activation are compatible with surrounding properties. And the General PD district utilizes modified building forms and standards to achieve the vision establishing adopted plans. Last slide CPD recommends approval based on training. All review criteria have been met.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have six speakers for this public hearing. I'm going to say all six names and you can come up to the front pew. Sean Maley, Dana Crawford, Bill Parkhill, Bill Moore, Justin Cross and Mr. Sekou. So those six can start to make their way up here. And Sean, you can begin your comments when you're ready.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Madam Members of Council. Sean Maley, 1625 Broadway. Denver. 802 I'm here representing the owner and development team. As Steve noted in his staff report, this is an industrial zone site up near the market. There are a number of changing conditions that are leading to the request to rezone Blueprint Denver and the River North Plan both identify this site as a mixed use area of change. The River North Plan also goes on to say that the residential uses will be predominantly located along the river. So this rezoning is to accommodate for a residential. Mixed use project that will truly embrace the river. As Steve discussed in the staff report, the reason we're seeking a pudi, which largely resembles x 12 is such that we can agree to treat the river like a primary street. And with that comes ground story activation, transparency and other requirements. Additionally, we're seeking flexibility from the build to requirements such that we can design and responsibly integrate this project with the river and the surrounding parks and open space. We filed the application originally on July 7th, 2014, and at that time it should be noted that it was 420 storeys in height. We had a number of dialogs with the surrounding neighborhood groups, but it's fair to say that the real back and forth didn't start until a few weeks leading up before planning board. So we actually delayed the project three times at planning boards so that we could continue on with our meetings with the neighborhood and community. The results of those delays was actually that we reduced the application from 20 stories in height to 12 storeys in height. You know, there were some other tower heights approved in the neighboring and adjacent and Argo market GDP. I believe there's 180 200 feet and 220 feet towers approved and the site just next to us. But at the end of the day, the project team and the development team wanted to be good neighbors, good partners with the community . And after a long, lengthy series of internal conversations, found a way to make the program and the project work with the 12 stories. I want to personally commend the folks in the Rhino Arts District and that neighborhood group for the series of dialogs that we had with them. It was a really good process and we're happy to have their support tonight. That concludes my remarks, and I'll be here for questions. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Danny Crawford.
Speaker 12: Mr. President, members of council, thank you very much once again for the opportunity to talk about a project. Mm hmm. I think it's been extremely well described to you. And we have obviously council chambers that are packed tonight in support of this project. And we we it most likely will be called to now go straight on the river. And it is really all about the river. And it is another opportunity in the Rhino District to to create a place where as a group, we are involved with placemaking and hope and think that we have a reputation for getting some kind of nice places done. The the group here isn't all going to speak to you. That's the very best news. We have people here ready to answer questions. And and the local development group is here, Curt Larson, all over in the corner, Bill Parkhill here and the architect. Bill, more can answer any questions that you might have. And we just want you to know that if you approve this tonight, while you can look forward to something very exciting in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Crawford. Bill Parkhill. Good evening. My name is Bill Parkhill.
Speaker 4: I'm at 631 High Street and I'm a member of the development team and I'm here to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you, Bill Moore. My name is Bill Moore. I'm an architect. I'm at 940 Lincoln. I'm here just for questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Justin Kroll.
Speaker 4: Good evening, members of the council. My name is Justin Croft, about 34, 55 rings B Court in the Rhino neighborhood. And I'm here representing the Urban Improvement Committee, which is a committee underneath the Rhino Art District. The Urban Improvement Committee is specifically tasked with tackling land use, infrastructure, connectivity, zoning issues in the neighborhood. We were actively engaged in this project, as Shaun said, and initially we had some challenges with the design of the project as shown. But to the great credit of this development team continuing to enter into dialog with us, we were able to talk it through and really reach consensus on something that Rhino feels really great about, that our district feels great about, and we would like to recommend that it be approved with our full support. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr.. You.
Speaker 11: First of all, a long term long see them. All right. Well. Well, we already know. Ain't no po po gon be in this. You know, since they talked about it. I know the rent for a studio are going to be at least 2600. And that's okay. That's okay. Because I don't want people to get the impression that I'm not open for folks to do development. I'm not busy every time. And that's what piques me about this whole process. Every time there's a mention of affordable housing for poor, working, poor or homeless people or Section eight people, there is this bum rush of opposition that comes out Toronto District. They don't want none of that down there because this is reserved riverfront properties for the Hootie hoops. And it's marketing and they've got to do who's got to have somewhere to go? They're going to have to somewhere. You know, and I understand that. But see, this is a diversity. So and everybody needs to have an opportunity to at least one time in their life. You know, our studio window that they can look out to the riverfront and be around, you know, some nice stuff, you know, because we're not disease cause we're poor or we're bad, not bad neighbors because we're poor. And to help with some of the initiatives that they have, inclusionary housing ordinances and things like that. We never seem to get around building us. Nothing for us. You guys are going to have to share this in Rondo districts, Cherry Creek, all throughout the city because it's still a city. That has residents of human beings who have value. We have the right to live. In a place that's safe and secure and a place they can raise their kids and be a part of, as opposed to being isolated and stigmatized and feeling unwanted. So originally I was opposed to this thing. But I changed my mind. Because you're in danger. And I know your heart is sick.
Speaker 0: You need to address council, please.
Speaker 11: Thank you. So I know her heart. I know Dana. And I know that we can sit down and have a conversation. And maybe we can open up some doors here and see if we can get some done things so that this can be a more exclusionary project. And then we can break down some of the barriers that's going down down it right now so that we can combat some elite ism, some classism, and once again unite this city.
Speaker 0: Mr. Speaker, your 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Time for questions from members of the council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I have a couple of questions. So the first one is for. The developer. Dana? Would you mind coming forward?
Speaker 12: Where we're multiple.
Speaker 8: Okay, so this is a four acre site.
Speaker 12: Rice for four plus.
Speaker 8: How how many residential units are proposed generally in general?
Speaker 12: We don't know exactly where as we wait for the rezoning, why, we have discussed a number of different proposals. We don't know whether they will be for rent or whether they'll be condominiums. We just know that the primary use will be residential. And as I said, this is really all about the river because there are very, very few places so far. I hope that's just true so far in this community that people can live in a place and be really involved with the Platte River. You want to come in so.
Speaker 8: For Akers, you can do a lot of units if you're allowed to build up to eight storeys in some areas and 12 in others. So if you're doing any for sale units and they exceed 30, then obviously you'll comply with the city's FHA ordinance. Right. Okay. That's that's all I have for you right now. I'd like to ask Steve Nelli a question, and I'd like the map pulled up so we could see the surrounding parcels. It looks to me on one of those maps, like we have railroad to the west. Is that an active railroad line to the west?
Speaker 1: It is a very active railroad line.
Speaker 8: Okay. So what I would like to know is if there was any discussion in the process about the interface with the railroad and issues related to public health and safety. And raising this because we have had a number of meetings with the planning director in our fire department around how especially in the design review process. But, you know, when you're you've got people coming in wanting to rezone, I think the discussion about how do we ensure that if there happens to be any kind of incident on the railroad next door, that we as a city are doing everything we can to protect public health and safety. So, for example, some of the things we've talked about have been like, how do you make sure that you don't have, you know, exit doors, if you will, that face the railroad tracks so that if you've got to evacuate the building and there's some kind of spill and we know that, you know, we're seeing more and more tanker cars that are carrying crude oil because we've seen more and more drilling, although that's kind of slowing down right now with the oil and gas industry. But communities across the country have had situations and incidents. And I'm trying to look at how we can be proactive as a city to ensure we're addressing those public health and safety issues. So I want to know what kind of discussions took place around those that that concern.
Speaker 1: Right. So I should just add that the North and metro commuter rail line will actually go in between this property and the rail that you can see on the map. So RTD does owns a property in the north metro line will go through there. Also through the discussions that we've had to date, it was more about what what sides of this property should be active. And there there are no requirements to have an entrance along the edge of the railroad beyond that discussion. That's that's that's all we had for the zoning. Now when the development team comes forward for site plan review, I'm sure those discussions will continue, especially with the fire department.
Speaker 8: Okay. I appreciate that. I just I just think it's in our collective best interest to ensure that, you know, we're thinking about that, looking at how we address it. With with all projects, I mean, and what really brought that to light was going out to a particular site where, you know, you've got roll up windows and people have very active space. The tracks are right there. You see the kinds of, you know, tanker cars that carry different types of materials. You know, I mean, I have a long history with those neighborhoods where from time to time we've had to see evacuations, you know, because of various types of spills or whatnot. And if we can in our process, really make sure that we're addressing that public health and safety issue, I think we would all be better off. Thank you. I have nothing further, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Canete.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of really quick questions probably for you, Steve. First of all, I, I know I've written this section of trail, but I cannot for life. Remember, does the trail, the bike trail go between where the site is in the river or is it on the other side of the river here?
Speaker 1: It is on this side.
Speaker 5: It is on this side. So they won't just be interface with the river. There actually be interface with the transportation corridor first. Okay, great. Further supporting, treating it like a road. Second question is I'm bad. Also on the new zoning code, old zoning code, I be weaver. I can't remember seeing another rezoning from B. Is that old code.
Speaker 1: That is new code.
Speaker 5: Or new code?
Speaker 1: Sorry, Denver zoning code. No, it.
Speaker 5: Was it was updated. Okay. Got it. And then my third question is the sign overlay. Got asked this question recently about because there's a whole net billboard situation in the state, if I understand correctly. So does the site have a billboard now? And what happens to the sign overlay with the PUD? Is it written into the pad or how does that work? Is it being extinguished?
Speaker 1: So the overlay is going away. I don't recall that there's a billboard on the site. I could be wrong.
Speaker 5: The zoning is there, but it's not part of the current allocation of how many signs are allowed.
Speaker 1: Right. The zoning would allow a billboard there today, but there is not a billboard on the site.
Speaker 5: It's going away.
Speaker 1: And it's going away.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. That's it, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: And Councilwoman Carlson. Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I think the developers won't give us a hint on what this development is going to be. So I'll go to my next question and maybe Councilwoman Monteiro can answer this, Steve maybe can answer this. But for for the Rhino neighborhood, it's a it's a it's a great opportunity because it's a blank canvas. And there's going to be a lot of development in the future. I'm just wondering, has there been any talks about creating design review guidelines for the future just when all these developments start hitting oak shaking? So one of your can can answer this question. I just think I think it's important we talk about that. And then one, I think it's important that we get to action on that. But I just want to I want to hear from either one of you. There has been quite a bit of discussion, especially in the neighborhood. So I would defer especially to Justin. But in considering design guidelines, I think there are a few ways to go about doing those. The traditional way is to adopt design guidelines as rules and regulations and then establish a review board and make permits or approving permits contingent on approval from that review board with a finding of consistency with those design guidelines. Some other things that we've discussed with the neighborhood has been more of an informal design guideline design guidelines where developers work with the neighborhood and they have a conversation with the permits aren't necessarily contingent on approval. Justin, do you want to?
Speaker 4: So we've been talking about design guidelines for a couple of years, specifically for the reasons that you brought up, which are there's so much development coming to the neighborhood and, you know, what does that look like and what is the neighborhood looking for and what's the vision for the neighborhood and how is that articulated? We've actually talked with Brad Buchannan on a couple of occasions as to what the best way to move that process forward is, specifically because we don't necessarily want to create the typical design guidelines. We want to be the neighborhood wants to be pro-development and pro change. The other reason is that we're not particularly caught up in architectural styles. I think what we're really interested in is great urbanism and having reinoehl be a place for great urbanism in the city. And so what that tends to look more like is form and activation of buildings at the street. So we are in the process of determining how we're going to articulate that and what the formalized process will look like with Mr. Buchanan. The other thing is we're looking at forming a business improvement district in the neighborhood. The idea being at that business improvement district would fund the creation of a set of design guidelines which we don't currently have.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just asked that question because I've heard some rumblings about it, but I didn't know if there was a formal plan to action this development. I'm sure it's going to be great, whatever it is. But I think this is a microcosm of the other 20 that are being planned in the future and this district has the opportunity to be incredible, like you said, new urbanism. And I just I'm glad that we're moving forward with that. It's good. Thanks.
Speaker 0: You, Councilman Brooks? Councilman? No.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I think this is for Mr. Neely, but anybody else on the development team may have the answer to this question. I raised this privately first when we had this at committee, and it was just a little source of anxiety on my part. Slip up a different picture, maybe the zoning picture. Yeah. On that thing. Right. No, no, that's the that's the land use picture. Is there a one? Yeah, that's a good one.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 4: So we're investing a bunch of money to make the river nicer, to make that, you know, a more of a a destination. And the developers are investing a lot of money in making this project actually speak to the river and interact with the river in a direct way. And then. But when I was looking at the map, there's this weird sliver of land that lies between the property in question that we're rezoning. And the Open Space C district, which is the river which appears to be owned by the railroad. And I don't know about y'all, but I haven't had great experiences with dealing with the railroad. So somebody somebody reassure me that this is understood and that there will be nothing standing in the way of creating developed space that speaks to the river and our investments on the river. That between those will not be a whole bunch of. Railroad ties and. You know, 50 gallon drums and Lord knows what all. Maintenance junk at the river. I mean, do you see you see what I mean about that? The space there.
Speaker 1: So the ownership is as well understood. The the the property is not abutting up for its entirety. The sliver actually ends and there is it's hard to see on this map. And I don't know if my pointer works on your screen. Oh, no, there it is. Yeah, I see your point. Okay, so this there's a very small sliver of upland in this portion, right?
Speaker 4: Just enough to fit some 15.
Speaker 1: I believe the ownership ends here and that it's city property and combination of city owned property and a property that is planned for open space associated with phase two of the Niro market GDP. Right. So a large portion of this area and here it's actually slated for open space to meet the center for the GDP. Now, I may ask the development team to to speak to any of negotiations or discussions they've had, but we do understand the ownership.
Speaker 4: I'd like to just dovetail on that a little bit. So first of all, we've really tried to approach the entire property almost in a sequential basis, and it's been very challenging. The acquisition of the land because of the seller was very challenging. The dialog and the and the zoning conclusions were challenging. And then again this the way we address the park and the open space will be a challenge. But so first of all, I will say we're very aware that it's a railroad property, it's a very small sliver, is probably 6 to 10 feet wide at the most at the biggest piece and narrows down. But most importantly, as has mentioned, we're very focused on trying to solve this problem and solve this river park, open space on the next step. So in terms of that sequence, that's our next next step. And then also will be the the actual land use the size of the project. To answer Debbie Ortega's question, we have engaged in a lot of dialog with the Greenway Foundation and Jeff Shoemaker. So far. We have engaged some planning and landscape architects with him. So we are working in concert with Greenway Foundation at the moment. It's very possible that it's a public private type of partnership that will solve that problem. So again, we don't really have any pat answers tonight, but but we do feel like we're solving these problems in a hierarchy that will get that accomplished. Thank you. I stand reassured.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Would you mind coming back up to the podium? Would you talk to counsel about the general background of the property? And in that it's been an activated for quite some time. And what you saw in this particular piece of property we've talked about. Most of the conversation is oriented towards the river, but are there other merits to this property? So I want you to answer that also and then clarify again. I think it's a little bit confusing that we keep talking about the Dynamo Market General Development Plan, which is not your character, which is not the proposed property that we're talking about. And be clear about the connection that the property that you're talking about, the connection that it has across the street to the do not go market.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So I'm going to play planning staff in point. So we are. So first of all, to answer to try to answer your question. This property has been on and off of the development radar for over ten or 12 years. It's been a very difficult challenge with the seller to acquire this parcel. Wind and cargo market GDP was originally applied for in 2006. This property was was thought to be included in that. And then that didn't work out. And as a result, it remained almost sterilized by itself for four, eight years. We had the opportunity to reactivate that in negotiations for the purchase of that. We felt the the value of this property as another gemstone for the rhino neighborhood and on that river was worth the challenge to try to activate that. So I don't know if that answers your your question, Councilwoman, with regards to the assemblage piece, with regards to the Drago market, GDP, that GDP is across the street to the east of us, we are not part of that. However, the reason we keep referring to the general market GDP is the scale and the size and the planning of that property helps inform our decisions and how we want to interact not only with the rest of the urban context, but also the river as well. And part of that river and that open space is the negotiated open space agreement with the our market GDP to put that open space adjacent to our property. So we feel like there's a a need for the dialog between the two parcels that the target market GDP in our property.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Any other questions on Tinetti? See? No other questions. Public hearing on 1080 is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. For quite some time. It's probably been 10 to 12 years. I've been very concerned about this particular piece of property, especially around the time that the the general market development across the street was being discussed in that particular zoning application. I think past probably 12 years ago before the Reno neighborhood even got any traction and is as attractive as it is today. This particular property has the potential to be a major anchor on that side of the river. Today, it's pretty isolated and it's a it's just it looks like it's an old grocery store garage where the semi-trucks were back up to the to the loading dock and take the groceries and to distribute this whole particular area to the merits of the diner go market, which is across the street, is because it really was a market at one time where people would go and purchase, I think it was wholesale produced fruits and vegetables and then distribute them around town. So there really is urban agricultural feel in this particular neighborhood. I was concerned about the height of the of the project and I was concerned about, you know, why are we doing another piece ? Those arguments have gone away as Steve, Nelly and the developers have explained why we do need to put under these extraordinary, extraordinary circumstances. The biggest one is that the project is oriented to magnify the use of the river. And it's my understanding that through going back and forth with the neighborhoods, the development team has has agreed to the 12 stories as opposed to the original 20. So that does build goodwill within the neighborhood. So I want to say that I am relieved that there will finally be an activated use for this particular piece of property . Today, it just sort of seemed like it's wasting away and it's kind of an asphalt parking lot. And the idea of activating and being able to have this kind of use is very, very important. I will say that in my mind it doesn't really relate to Brighton Boulevard in that, you know, it's several blocks away, which I know is probably not a popular thing to say, but I like that we have Brighton Boulevard developing as it is in terms of its uses bikes, pedestrians, automobiles and other vehicles. But this sits back, I don't know, two blocks maybe. And so it kind of gives it can give potential people in the future a respite in terms of being away from the the harshness of and maybe it won't be harsh in the future, but today it is the urban harshness of Brighton Boulevard. So you can easily just walk a couple of blocks and you're near the near the the river. So I am supporting this and want to commend everyone, Steve, Nelly and to the developers and the whole team for actually taking the time to sit down and listen and being able to work out all of the, you know, all of the concerns and come to presenting the application that we have to do. So I will be supporting this and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmembers.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll be supporting this because of similar reasons that Councilwoman Monteiro mentioned. But I want to say something that's a little different. I believe this is Bob. Alex, this is the first time we we've seen a project that Bob Gorelick has been representing. And I want to thank Shamali for standing in. And we just as a council, just want to give our thoughts and prayers to Bob. We know he's doing a little bit better, but we want to see him to a full recovery and be up here talking that that zoning mumbo jumbo. So here's the here's to Bob Gorelick. I vote yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seen. Their comments on 1080. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Montero I never i Ortega I Rob I Shepherd I'm Brooks. I can eat lemon.
Speaker 4: Lopez All right.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please. Kosovo only announced results tonight. Tonight 1080 has been placed on final consideration and does pass a one period German announcement on Tuesday, January 20th, 2015. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1097, authorizing and approving an amendment to the Saint Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to add to Sloan's BLOCK seven East Project and to create the Sloan's BLOCK seven East sales tax increment area and a required public hearing on Council Bill 1099 authorizing and approving an amendment to the St Anthony Urban Redevelopment Plan to add the Sloan's BLOCK seven West Project and to create the Sloan's BLOCK seven West sales tax increment area. On Monday, February nine, 2015. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill six, changing the zoning classification for 2600 South University Boulevard. Any protest against Council Bill six must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon on Monday, February 2nd, due to the Martin Luther King holiday. Council will meet on Tuesday, January 20th, 2015. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 5: Denver eight TV your city your so.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 3325 Denargo Street. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Rezones 3325 Denargo Street from I-B, UO-2 (Industrial 4,500 sq. ft., Use Overlay) to PUD #G12 in Council District 9. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-10-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01052015_14-1062
|
Speaker 5: I just pulled this one out. This one actually relates to the amount that we are authorizing for Kaiser. But I had several questions and I see Heather Britton here, and I know that Heather would know the answers.
Speaker 8: To these questions there, certainly know where.
Speaker 5: To find them. And I will mention that I was asked questions.
Speaker 8: Before the meeting started.
Speaker 5: By citizen. And so I'm going to ask that some of this be discussed here.
Speaker 9: First of all.
Speaker 8: The bills themselves authorize the.
Speaker 5: 2014 year contract and we're now 2015. I know this is customary, but would you please explain why we're doing 2014 business today term?
Speaker 7: It's all timing.
Speaker 8: Actually.
Speaker 1: Heather, could you just introduce yourselves for the record, please?
Speaker 7: Heather Britton I'm the benefit manager with the Office of Human Resources. It's a timing issue. I visit you guys frequently. In fact, in for 2014. I visited you in August of 2013 to receive approval to purchase all of these contracts. By the time we make our way through the contract approval process, the division of insurance, so on and so forth, with our 13 different contracts, it takes pretty much all year to get the final contract language.
Speaker 4: So this is just sort of.
Speaker 7: Buttoning things up. You guys already approved the purchase about a year and a half ago for these contracts.
Speaker 5: Okay. My second question is, it was commented on what a.
Speaker 7: Large amount once.
Speaker 5: You added all seven amounts.
Speaker 8: Together.
Speaker 5: Can you mention whether this includes both the employee premium and the city contribution?
Speaker 7: And this was the Kaiser? Yes, it includes both the employer employee premium, but it also includes all employees. So it's the.
Speaker 4: Career service.
Speaker 7: Group and fire and police in that Kaiser's Kaiser number.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And the last one was not connected to these contracts, but since I had you up here, there was an approval to do a bonus.
Speaker 8: For those who wanted to participate in the wellness program.
Speaker 5: Has that been paid out to employees?
Speaker 7: It did. There was a brand new wellness program I presented to you all in, or at least that Technology and Governance Governance Committee for completing a wellness incentive. Employees were rewarded really with the $240 one time incentive, and that was paid on their first December check. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Any other questions on things? 1062 CNN. Thank you, Miss Britain. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I just want to mention that when we. Discuss these bills last in committee. We also talked about the fact that folks from Human Resources are going to begin having conversations with city employees about the fact that our plans for next year are going to be different. And so for 2016, we're going to start having those conversations early with employees because some of it is complex. And I just want to remind folks that not to be surprised that, you know, human resources will begin coming to the different city agencies to talk about how the changes will impact them in 2016 and be able to answer all those questions early. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. So you know the comments on this one, Madam Secretary, one to your next one, which should be 1112. Councilwoman Ortega, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 7: So I have questions on all three of these, and the questions are the same. So if we can just address them all together, go ahead. That would be helpful. So I'd like to address these with I see Aaron in the audience from DIA. So my questions are, number one, there's language in here that says it's eliminating midterm refurbishment requirement and it looks like this is extending or. Allowing the contract to be renewed. I'm not sure if these are PDC premium value program concessions.
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 7: So help me understand with this, eliminating the mid-term refurbishment requirement means on all three of these contracts.
|
Bill
|
Approves an agreement with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado to provide medical insurance coverage in 2014 to eligible employees with a contract amount not to exceed $59.408 million (CSAHR-201419383-00). (TECHNOLOGY & GOVERNANCE) Approves an agreement with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado to provide medical insurance coverage in 2014 to eligible employees with a contract amount not to exceed $59.408 million (CSAHR-201419383-00). The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-19??-15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-16-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01052015_14-0962
|
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 962 series of 2014 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second in the public hearing for council bill 962 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. I'm Deirdre Oates with Community Planning and Development. I will present to you this Council Bill 962 a proposal for an amendment to the Denver Zoning Code. No. Specifically to Article nine Division 9.4 to add d05 or design overlay five concerning the South Sloan's Lake redevelopment. Former St Anthony's Hospital. The ordinance is sponsored by Council District one councilman Susan Shepard. The ordinance also and the overlay itself has been reviewed by the property owners who are actually within the area that is defined in the proposed design overlay. And unlike some text amendments that you might see to the zoning code, which are are something to be applied citywide, this is a design overlay that is more specific to a larger site that will be developed over time by multiple folks, but is looking for a consistent approach in design and transitions to adjacent neighborhoods. And so the design overlay tool was chosen as the way to implement recommendations and plans, and I'll explain those to you. So the purpose of the overlay district, it must meet one or more of the following in accordance with our zoning code, and in this case, highlighting implementation of land use and urban design recommendations and standards that are set forth in neighborhood and small area plans that have been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Also to provide uniform standards for mitigating the impact of more intensive uses adjacent to less intensive uses, and to reinforce the desired character for newly developing areas. All three of those are very specifically applied to the South slogans like area. The Tax amendment process. Specifically, there is an internal draft review by community planning and development. The text amendment itself was drafted, reviewed by our city staff and then Council District one and partners and owners who are affected by the specific design overlay that occurred in the fall of 2014. Notice was then emailed to all registered neighborhood organizations with links to that review, draft and summary was posted to our website on September 30th. The Planning Board had a public hearing in November 5th and notification to the Register, Neighborhood Organizations and City Council was was provided for that hearing and also notification for the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee that occurred on November 12th. So those are the processes that have occurred up to now, the final hearing for the text amendment. With regard to the schedule, there are two, two items here that you'll see on your presentation. The top is the the text amendment, and that is where we are today, January 5th, for the final hearing. Below is an accompanying map amendment. Now, that map amendment will come to city council in February. Tonight, we are just talking about the text amendment to establish the text as part of the Denver zoning code. And then we will later come back with a proposal to map that design overlay to the site. So I just wanted you to see that schedule as well. So this is concerning the Southlands Lake redevelopment area, the former St Anthony's Hospital in Council District one on the west side of Denver, just north of Colfax. It's 17th between Stuart and Perry Street. And this is the site, obviously an old areal. Now, everything is is under redevelopment actively right now. But the areas specifically affected by this design overlay take off the little legs that are south of Kansas. And you're looking at the areas between Stewart Street on the West, Perry Street on the East, 17th on the north, and then Kinney House on the south. The existing zoning of the site. So you have a little bit of that context is c m x5 urban center mixed use five story. The action that you take tonight should you approve this design overlay will not change that underlying zoning. That will be an action that will take place as a proposal in February, as I mentioned, as part of an accompanying map amendment. So here are a few more pictures of the slums like redevelopment area. This is the slums like park to the north of cell slums like redevelopment area. And then some of the context around the site to the east on Perry Street. We're talking about primarily single family, lower density residential and lower intensity residential that surrounds the site to the west and to the east. And that is the reason that this overlay has been proposed, is to provide transitions to these sites that are consistent with neighborhood plans. Okay. The West Colfax plan and the South like general development plan both advocate for height transitions to existing lower density, lower height West Colfax neighborhood blocks, including Stuart and Perry Street. The design overlay as proposed implements height limitation concepts that were conceived in the West Colfax Plan and specifically delineated in the approved southlands like general development plan . I should note now that the General Development Plan is not an official supplement to the comprehensive plan, but the West Colfax Plan is. And so that is our main guiding document. But it was more refined in the general development plan as a supporting document. The design overlay uses a distance from the zone, not line so the edge of the property to identify the extent of these height limitations. And I'll show you. You also have in your packet the actual redlined draft of the overlay and then I'll show you some pictures as to how that applies. And the overlay also provides an exception for exterior balconies. And I'll talk about why that is. It provides context, sensitive height, transitions to the adjacent neighborhood and again, does not change your base zoning. So let's start on 17th and Stewart Street. These are just pictures that you also have in your your packet. This shows a structure. This is simply kind of a building envelope. It's typical of the kinds of drawings that we have in our summer zoning code. And this shows for Stewart Street a three storey 45 foot maximum height between 17th and 16th, 480 feet from that zone, lot line. So you can see where the height can transition up to the five story road's current five story district, 80 feet from that zone lot line on Stewart Street. And that provides more of a pedestrian oriented height transition along Stewart. Then between 16th and Carney House, which is to the south, it's another it's 80 feet and then there's a four storey maximum. And this accommodates an existing structure in the parking garage on the site. And then also any future development that might come into play, it would be limited to four storeys for 80 feet from that mine plus it. Along 17th Avenue, there is a five story maximum height limitation for 4343 feet from the zone lot line. That's kind of a funny number. It comes up because a cell phone's like was being redeveloped. 17th Avenue needed to be finally, finally added as part of the subdivision. And when they looked at the delineation of what 17th Avenue would become, it turns out that the private property, there's eight feet of the public sidewalk that's actually included within some of that right of way. So we actually added.
Speaker 6: 88 feet.
Speaker 8: To the normal 35 foot from zone lot line. That would have been our normal restriction to make it 43. So a little math behind that. And then on Equipment Street, which is Mid-Block in South Sloan's Lake at 60 feet from the zone lot line with a five story maximum height or 70 feet. Perry Street. Lastly is three stories and 45 foot maximum height with 80 feet from the zone lot line along Perry and that is that eastern side of the south sounds like redevelopment. The balcony exception if you look at your your packet and look at your slide, there is a little area in beige called the restricted height area . Normally, if we did not accept a balcony, they wouldn't be able to build a building and then actually have balconies that would be added to it like you see on most multifamily buildings that are constructed today. That is because in our height exceptions in the code, we do not list balconies as an exception to height. They're seen as an exception to setbacks. So how of how far they come close to the street, even if it's a balcony up, you know, four stories or five stories. But they're not shown as height exceptions. And so we wrote an exception to ensure that the developer was able to provide balconies without taking away square footage of the units which they would have to do if they were to meet those those zone line restrictions for the height. There are two and we're calling them adopted and pending rezonings. Right now both of these are pending the ACM x five, which is the current zoning, the proposed design overlay oh five that would be applied to the site is part of a map amendment that will come to you in February. And then there is also a map amendment for what's called block. One of the sounds like subdivision filing one and that is that northwest block of the redevelopment. They're looking for a rezoning to CMC's 12 and that is the applicant proposing that to see him x 12 they would be applying for and reinforcing the deal five again. But because we don't have the deal five on the books, that application still looks as if it's pending until we have the deal five on site. So now, you know, there are kind of three things that are happening along with the site that you will see over the course of the next month, month and a half. Review criteria for text amendments include consistency with cities, adopted plans and policies, uniformity of district regulations and restrictions, and then further in the Public Health, Safety and General Welfare Plan 2000 or Blueprint Denver from 22 in the West Coal Flex Facts Plan adopted in 2006 all provide the structure for that plan consistency review. Within the the comprehensive plan, there is specific guidance. A lot of that in the narrative to use the best of Denver's architectural and landscape legacy to guide the future in quality design, to be livable and admired. All of the components of the city, its infrastructure, buildings and open spaces must function well and be attractive individually while combining to create meaningful, beautiful places. When you're adding new to old as and we as we're doing here with this redevelopment. So slums like this is one of those phrases that really rings true for redevelopment here. Also, the primary urban design challenge of the early 21st century will be to integrate elements of Denver's traditional urban design character into redeveloping areas and new, more compact, mixed use areas. And so the design overlay has come to us as a tool to apply to the site because it can be applied over time to multiple blocks that will be developed by different people. It'll provide a consistent approach. Specifically policies regarding Denver's legacy is to identify areas where increased density and users can be accommodated and then to encourage quality infill development. We want to encourage that quality infill development. We want to make sure that it is sensitive to the context and the neighboring blocks, in this case, the West Colfax neighborhood. Blueprint. Denver is our land use and transportation plan. It specifically identifies the sites within an area of change for mixed use. Development and specific concepts that are applicable from blueprint include a change in the land use standards of a zone as a tool to improve compatibility. Again, the design overlay using land use and transportation types, focusing on the experience of place at the ground level where the qualities of pedestrian oriented city are most apparent and again, tapering down the height toward the edges is important for creating that pedestrian space along a mixed use street pedestrian scaled facades, which may include height transition step backs for the front of a taller building promoting pedestrian activity. Again, the overlay is designed to provide a building envelope for that to occur. It doesn't constitute detail on the architecture. It doesn't say what to build. It just gives an envelope for building height restrictions in the West Colfax Plan, which is the most specific plan for the site redeveloping St Anthony's in a manner that catalyzes reinvestment in the larger study area while respecting, complementing, enhancing stability of the surrounding neighborhood. The site is identified as catalytic development opportunity as an urban town center, and specific to that with variable scale radiating from the dense core to a lower intensity at the fringe. And there is also a picture in your packet of one of the many kinds of concepts that could be it's on page five of your packet could be used to to look at this site. And it shows generally the higher buildings in the center and lower buildings toward the fringes. And so these height restrictions are designed to create that that lower height and intensity from the West Colfax plan. There are a number of different policies and language that supports the development of this area. So that is not what's the question tonight. It's how we do this best and what kinds of tools can be used to provide this transition. So I've listed many of those specific here. We're talking about promoting safe and attractive pedestrian linkages, incorporating focal points, public gathering spaces and strong pedestrian linkages, and then creating an urban edge along West 17th to define the park. That, for instance, when you create an urban edge or creating a place where people can walk along, where you can have the ability to provide space, either if it's residential or if it's commercial mixed use, which the zoning does allow. If you're doing it in a way that is not creating canyons of taller buildings right next to the street and instead providing height transitions, it creates a better space for the pedestrian. And that's part of best practices in urban design. In the general development plan. If you look at this slide, there's a dotted line around the middle of the site from 17th Avenue down to new house. That dotted line defines what was called the core area. And when we talked about variable densities and variable heights, you're radiating from the denser inner core to the lower intensity at the fringe. These height limitations are designed, if you look on the right for Stuart Equipment and Perry Street to be specific to those recommendations in the South Sloan's General Development Plan. Again using the general development plan for the text amendment. The GDPR provides additional reinforcement, but it is not considered a supplement to the comprehensive plan. It's just additional information for you. And then the Denver Zoning Code provides that the city council may approve an official map amendment which will come to you next month for property located within an approved GDP. So keep this in mind as you're looking at this a month from now in an application for the MAP Amendment that will accompany this this design overlay. With regard to uniformity of district regulations, the text amendment results in regulations that are uniform across the districts. This means that they will be applied across the area that gets Ddr5 five that they will be applied in the same manner and to which it is written. And it is written very specific to certain blocks. And furthering the public health, safety and welfare, providing for context sensitive transitions between new infill development and adjacent lower intensity, lower height blocks in established neighborhoods, and transitions that provide for pedestrian friendly environments at the street level where experience of place is most apparent. So the public review, I went through this a little bit, but we had informational notice symptoms of tember 30th. There was no dissent of the planning board hearing on October 21st. There was also a public meeting where the applicants the city attended, but then also the owners of the property that's affected also attended to help answer questions about how this overlay will affect future development, followed by the Planning Board, public hearing and just the update notice was sent for City Council to a number of different registered neighborhood organizations. With regard to public comment, we actually had a few public comments sent to CPD at the public meeting. They asked about how the balcony height exception works in the future of new based zoning with higher height as approved balcony height exception still applies for anything that's over the site. And then with planning board there, there were questions about the use of applicable city plans and concerns regarding the overall development impact. Things that weren't necessarily related to the overlay, but we did hear those as well. So with that, staff recommends approval of the Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment for the Southlands like design overlay or D or five. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Host. We have three speakers signed up and I'm gonna call all three. You can come up to the front pew and the first one can begin his remarks Cameron Bertrand, Dan Shay and Ben Stetler. So excuse me, you three can come on up and Mr. Bertrand, you can go ahead and begin your remarks.
Speaker 0: Hi, my name is Cameron Bertrand. I work for LFG. Sounds like one. We are not the applicant, but we are the property owner of four of the six blocks affected by the design overlay. Our address is 475 17th Street, Denver. Thanks very much for having me up here tonight. I just briefly wanted to say that as the owner of four of the six blocks and once upon a time all six of the blocks, it may be a little bit unusual for a property owner to support what is really effectively height restrictions across much of the property. But for us, this is really the culmination of an effort that the city started back in 2006 with the twin Anthonys task force recommendations, followed by the West Colfax Corridor plan that I think put very clearly out there the intention after many community meetings that the development of the redevelopment of the St Anthony's site be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood and that heights transition from the center down to the edges. And I think that that was further put forward through more than 60 meetings that we had with the community when we showed up in 2012. And the passage of the GDPR, which further reinforced not only transitioning heights at the edges, but also to some extent in the center to make for active urban mixed use streets. So just on behalf of us as the owner as well as our development partners who are building the are the presumptive builders of the mixed use buildings on this site, we support the passage of the design overlay text amendment here tonight and just a quick thank you to CPD for all their work along the way and to Councilwoman Sheperd for sitting through 60 public meetings with us. Thanks very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Dan. Dan Shay.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Dan Schorr and I met with the West Colfax Business Improvement District. And I just want to thank you for your time to consider our input. My district strongly supports the text amendment because it furthers the principles and recommendations of the West Colfax Plan and because the proposed development projects that are coming on based on that following the text amendment restrictions are a critical step toward revitalization in West Colfax. In addition to specific design recommendations, the West Colfax plan sets out objectives for growth in West Colfax, and the proposal under consideration today should be commended because it is designed to ensure that type of growth actually occurs at the Saint Anthony site. These objectives include promoting a range of housing types, increasing income diversity and offering the density of development that will support enhanced retail and neighborhood services, as well as a healthy walking and transit oriented environment. The design overlay not only enshrines in code recommendations from the West Colfax Plan, but working in conjunction with even more restrictive design guidelines , plays a critical part in laying the groundwork for the kind of owner occupied condo project that is sorely missing from among the housing types in West Colfax and actually is not found in any of the other of Denver. Denver's Untested Markets. It therefore supports the plan's recommendations to increase the range of affordable I mean, of available housing types in West Colfax. We know that from a business development perspective, this form of market rate housing will attract residents with greater disposable income, also recommended by the West Colfax Plan and contribute importantly to West Colfax is well , revitalization. Last but not least, by striking a balance between existing housing stock and more intense development. The text amendment also supports the West Colfax vision of a neighborhood developing with sufficient rooftops. To support strong neighborhood serving retail and services. At the same time, the density also supports the West Colfax Plans recommendations of inculcating a strong walking and transit oriented culture. For these reasons, the West Colfax bid supports the proposed tax amendments as directly supporting the West Colfax plans objectives of income, diverse, retail, abundant and healthy neighborhood in West Colfax. So thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Shah. Ben Stetler.
Speaker 0: Hello. Good evening. My name's Ben Stetler. I live at the corner of 17th and Utica, and I'm co-president of the West Colfax Association of Neighbors. Our organization is excited for this project and for the opportunity that it presents for the West Colfax corridor. I'd like to read a letter that we prepared, read that you all now. And thank you, by the way, for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm writing on behalf of the West Colfax Association of Neighbors Weekend to express our general support for the Design Overlay District at the Sloane's redevelopment. Since the board membership of our organization voted to support the GDP for the redevelopment in December of last year, and the design overlay district merely codifies the lower height specified in the GDP at the time. The Board of Directors feels confident in supporting this new district. It should be noted that we did not take any official vote on this issue, but simply lean on our previous support. By and large, the board and the membership are quite happy with the way in which the project is progressing and glad to see that the city is taking it upon itself to ensure that the residential edges of the development are protected from taller development as outlined in the GDP. We can represents the needs and desires of the residents and business owners in the Denver's West Colfax neighborhood. Our organization currently has over 550 registered members and is dedicated to creating a healthy, safe and sustainable community in West Colfax. Please support us in approving this rezoning. We look forward to the completion of this project. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now is time for questions. Do we have any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a question for Deirdre. So the evolution of this project has had many phases, shall we say, met several of which perhaps may not be the most obvious or clear to folks that have been following it. And I think there may be a lot of people perhaps watching tonight via television that say, you know, why are we doing this? Because isn't this what we already did through the general development plan process, which was, you know, you know, went we went through literally a year ago and planning board made the final vote. So I think it would be beneficial to clarify why this next step is needed.
Speaker 8: Certainly the general development plan is a guiding tool. It is a process that is in our Denver zoning code. It is not a regulatory tool for helping to restrict that height in a formal way that attaches to zoning. And so while it's in the general development plan, without this tool, there isn't a consistent regulatory approach that would accompany the zone district that's currently there, the Cemex five or any other zone district that they propose. So it is a regulatory tool. It is the way we help implement that GDP as the next step.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you for that. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel. I'm sure councilman in each.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. I just want to make sure I am saying it back and understanding correctly the differences between the different votes coming in phases. So what we're doing tonight is creating a new district with some rules regarding three stories, four stories, five stories. Any zone district that adopts those this DOE five at a later date will be adopting these restrictions regardless of what the height is in the non restricted portion. So for example, it could be three stories next to five, which is what it is today, or it could be three stories next to 12 if that's what's adopted. Just depending on which street you're on, so am I. Am I understanding that correctly in terms of how this will interact with what comes after it?
Speaker 8: What comes after it? Right. Pretty much, yes. So what we're doing is putting the language on the books today. And should you approve that, then that would become part of the Denver zoning code. And in a month, you'll see the map amendment that goes with this applied to that very same area that we talked about. And that map amendment will then make the zoning on the site effectively seem x five slash DL five. So we're adding that overlay to it. The third that we're talking about for an applicant who comes in and is proposing a different zone district like the CM x 12 to change the base zoning, we've asked just to reinforce , even though it already would be on the site, we've asked that they come in with an application that still says d05 on it to make very clear that it doesn't go away, that it's staying along with that. And in fact, you know, sneak peek, the planning board looked at that and said, that's great, but we want to make sure that the door five is applied to the site. And so it's just a reinforcing way to look at any zoning application in the future. But the deal five would apply to the entire site.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you for making sure I understood that.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other questions on 962? Seen a public hearing on 962 is now closed time for comments from members of council councilwoman shepard.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I am glad to sponsor this text amendment this evening and it's precisely for many other reasons that we've already spoke about tonight. The West Colfax plan in 2004, you know, did envision higher density in this site because it is an area of change. And we knew the hospital would eventually leave and then we'd have, you know, all these blocks and, you know, what would we do with them? And in particular, with the advent of the light rail and of course, also the West Colfax bus line that exists today, which has 15 minute headways. We have excellent, excellent public transportation opportunities throughout this whole corridor. And if, you know, as our city grows and changes, it is imperative, you know, that we plan for the infrastructure that helps to accommodate that growing population. And the number one of the number one ways to do that is by making sure that we have adequate public transit, transportation, transportation options to help meet that need. However, although it is an area of change, there is already a very large established neighborhood there in that area, many 1 to 2 story homes throughout the whole neighborhood. And I think it is imperative, you know, that. We protect the quality of life for those folks, especially on Perry Street and Stewart Street, which is the east and west boundaries of this site. And I think it's a very sensitive approach to help limit the height at those edges, to better compliment the site as it develops forward. And in particular, I think this is extremely important as we contemplate potential heights that are even higher than the five stories that is currently on the site. And as many of you know, through the presentation, that is already a higher, you know, heights, higher than five stories are already being contemplated there. So I think it's even more imperative that we move to codify this in a way that can give residents that have already been on the on the ground for quite a while, you know, some security that they're not going to be faced with, you know, potentially up to 12 stories right there, you know, across the street from them. So for that reason, I am definitely supporting this tonight as I chose to sponsor this application and I would ask my fellow council members to support it as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilwoman Kennedy.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I would also like to just enthusiastically add my support to this to this overlaid change. I really do think that the idea of density is one that people talk about. And often when they're articulating their concerns, it's really design that's more concerning than total height. It's about what it feels like, it's about what it looks like. And so, in my opinion, these kinds of overlays and even some of the basic things we already have in our zoning code like step backs and setbacks from the street edge, which will also apply to some of these edges to even further enhance the way that it feels when you're walking by it or living near it. So I really do think that these pieces are really responsive to the to the community and actually even to the original conversations about how you make something that was a piece of the neighborhood, but a pretty rough transition from hospital to residential become a little more of an integrated transition. And so I think that it'll actually be an even better experience than the prior uses and the prior edges were. And so in that way, I think redevelopment presents an opportunity for a really great, seamless community. So I want to just thank all of the work that went into it and to Councilwoman Sheperd for coming forward and sponsoring this creative solution. So I hope we all support it enthusiastically.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other comments on 962? Seen none. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Brooks. Hi, Brown. I fats. I can eat lemon Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. As women can each. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting. And as a result, 3939 counts will 962 is passed on Monday, February 2nd, 2015. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 963, changing the zoning classification between 17 Drive, Cornelius Place, Stewart Street and Perry Street, South Long Lake General Development Plan Boundaries . Any protests against Council Bill 963 must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon on Monday, January 26, 2015. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned. Yeah.
|
Bill
|
Approves a text amendment to Article 9, Division 9.4, of the Denver Zoning Code to create the South Sloan’s Lake Design Overlay, DO-5. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to Article 9, Division 9.4, of the Denver Zoning Code to create the South Sloan’s Lake Design Overlay, DO-5. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-12-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
KingCountyCC_08172022_2022-0269
|
Speaker 0: Okay, thank you very much. See no further requests. We will close public comment. The first item on our agenda today is confirming the appointment of Alan Nance as the director of the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention. Mr. Nance served as the Director of the Trades Juvenile Division since November 2019 and has been acting as director designee ADHD Judy since his appointment on June 25th, 2022. We are. So is there a problem with that? I keep hearing these beeps. Okay. We also have with us Leah crackles IP from our central staff to provide the briefing on the site. And we are as well joined by the appointee who is on the zoom call with this, I believe, as well as Dwight Lively, who will introduce Mr. Nance when we after we hear the staff report. Sylvia, thank you for being here. And please go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, council members. I'm Leah crackles IP Council staff and the materials for this item begin on page eight of your packet. As the chair said, the proposed motion would confirm the executive's appointment of Alan Nance as director of the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention. King County Code provides for the county executive to appoint the head of each executive department and for the County Council to confirm such appointments. As you know, Mr. Nance has been or have been serving as King County's director of the Juvenile Division of the D.A., Judy, for the last two and a half years. In that role, Mr. Nance was responsible for managing operations of King County's 124 bed secure detention facility, as well as programs for community supervision. Notably, Mr. Nance has served as Project Lead for the effort to close the juvenile detention facility by 2025. Mr. Nance began his career as a probation officer and rose to eventually become chief probation officer for the city and county of San Francisco. In that capacity, Mr. Nance led efforts to expand alternatives to detention and diversion, leading to a record low population in the city's juvenile justice system. Mr. Nance has also served as acting director for the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice for San Francisco Mayor Prior, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. And Mr. Nance has completed the necessary background checks, and his appointment appears to be consistent with King County code requirements. So staff have not identified any issues. This appointment.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of the. Okay. Let's turn now to Director Dwight Di Lee of the Office of Performance Strategy. And that's it. Yes, I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: I'm wondering if I could ask the question in.
Speaker 0: Sure. And I'm sorry. If I didn't see you, that might be helpful. Individuals have their hand raised on this because otherwise.
Speaker 4: It's hard to.
Speaker 0: Tell.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Chair. Sorry about that. My question is regarding the staff member who just stepped up to speak with us and to share the the request that we look further and then and then.
Speaker 5: Your description.
Speaker 4: That the the staff have not voiced any.
Speaker 5: Objections to this.
Speaker 4: And in information that has been requested. Now, can you talk about that discrepancy? Because I've met Director Nance and really enjoyed him. And yet.
Speaker 5: This is the.
Speaker 4: Third time that I have heard from staff.
Speaker 5: A request to look.
Speaker 4: More deeply specifically into the center itself. And I'm just wondering if you can help me understand that a little more. Sure. Councilmember Perry, when I say that staff has not identified issues, I am speaking of your council, central staff, your analytical staff, that is 100% nonpartisan. And I'm not referring to any other staff. No internal staff to the juvenile detention center. Correct. So it's just a matter of our role of reviewing county code and what the requirements are for any particular appointment. We have no role in who the actual person being being appointed or confirmed is simply making sure that the appointment complies with the code. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Speaker 0: And Councilmember Perry, you'll have an opportunity to ask questions of the nominee, too.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Let's turn now to Director Dove Lee. Welcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me. Can you hear me clearly?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Great. So for the record, Dwight Dave Lee, the director of the Office of Performance Strategy and Budget, I'm also the chief operating officer for the county. And it is my privilege on behalf of executive Dow Constantine to bring forward the nomination of Alan Dance, to be the next director of the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention. I was going to go through Alan's background, but your staff has already done that quite effectively. So I'll simply say two things. First of all, as I think all of you know.
Speaker 3: Alan is an outstanding leader.
Speaker 2: The department is facing major challenges, unprecedented challenges because of COVID, because of the backlog in our criminal legal system, because of all of the challenges we have faced with staffing and hiring. And Alan is the perfect person to bring forward the leadership. We need to address those challenges. And secondly, Alan is committed.
Speaker 3: To reform of the justice system.
Speaker 2: That showed in his work at the city and county of San Francisco and has showed in his work since. He has been with us here at King County. And I am confident that with Alan's leadership, we will be able to move forward with all the efforts that the executive and the council is making to make our justice system fairer and more efficient and more equitable. So that is my absolute pleasure to bring Alan's nomination forward.
Speaker 3: To the Council today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Director Divya. Are there any questions of Director Divya before we go ahead with Mr. Nantz? Okay. Well, welcome, Mr. Nance and Director Nance, and I appreciate your being with us today and congratulations on your appointment. We, as you know, we are taking up that appointment and will be making I will see a recommendation to the full council for confirmation. So you, our staff already gave you an introduction, but we'd like to hear from you too, in terms of perhaps why you wanted to assume this new position and why you believe you are particularly qualified to do so. Thank you. And go right ahead.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. And I first of all, I'd like to thank Director Timely for the introduction. Jericho Wildes and members of the Council. My name is Alanis and I am humbled and honored to be considered for the appointment as director of the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention. After 33 years of public service, all of which were in positions committed to community safety, stakeholder engagement, and continuous efforts toward organizational improvement and changing lives of those in the justice system. I am excited by the opportunity to advance the quality of the services provided in our institutions and the commitment to partnership with our justice partners and the communities that we serve. I want to thank Executive Constantine for this appointment and his confidence to lead this critical public safety organization. I appeared before you today with a strong focus on equity and inclusion for people in our justice system, and by extension, that same commitment to the amazing men and women who make up the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention. I and our team continue to share the essential tenets of our work, which include creating and maintaining an environment where those in custody experience a place that is safe, secure and humane. I also believe that we need to leverage the opportunities we have while people are in custody to provide them with the resources that they need to address the factors that contributed to challenges in their lives that resulted in their arrests, while at the same time promoting and supporting their well-being as they contemplate the next steps in their lives beyond incarceration. I intend to focus our efforts toward building a sustainable workforce that leverages strategies to enhance recruitment, retention, and our capacity to hire and develop well-trained and motivated staff. We will prioritize risk assessment and mitigation approaches focused on reducing self-harm and incidents of suicide. This includes assessing structural, clinical and operational factors and acting with urgency and deliberateness. Our efforts must be trauma informed, grounded in best practices for behavioral health, medical care, and the safety and security required for modern day jail and detention settings. We must facilitate access to community agencies, programs and other resources while folks are in custody in order to effectively lay the foundation for reentry into the community once they have been released from our custody. If confirmed today, I look forward to working with the executive, the council, our legal system partners, the aged staff and community to operate jail and detention facilities, as well as community corrections program that serves the needs of our community and contributes to making King County a safer place to live, work and play. Thank you for this opportunity to make some remarks this morning.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for being with us. I guess I should say, director designee designate. Would you please respond to Councilmember Perry's question?
Speaker 6: Absolutely. Thank you. First of all, I want to acknowledge the public comment that was made earlier today. I also want to acknowledge that we are dealing with some unprecedented challenges in our justice system. We spent we spent the last two and a half years managing COVID 19 in the institutions. We've been particularly successful in having relatively low numbers of our young people in custody at the juvenile facility that have contracted COVID 19. But it has continued to ravage that, and it continues to have additional impacts with respect to the morale of our young people, the morale of the staff. And, of course, it's reduced the capacity to have outside agencies inside the facility to the extent that we normally would. I understand Mr. Smith's concerns. We don't take them lightly. We've taken a number of very proactive steps to address some of the labor concerns. We're working with a workforce that is still relatively new to the juvenile justice system. Those folks require a lot of training, a lot of support before they get really good at what they do. But I will also say that we have a number of really committed, an incredible, tireless every single day to make sure that young people are able to be involved in programing, do have access to clinical supports, psychiatry, social workers, medical care and educational opportunities in our environment. And we'll continue to get better at that and will continue to be invested in improving our capacity to serve those young people up until the very day that we closed that facility in 2025. Our commitment is stronger than ever with respect to having trauma informed care for young people in custody, making sure that we partner with our other justice partners in solving the complex needs of our young people in custody. And with respect to gang interventions, we support strategies. But more importantly, we support partnering with community in solving those complex strategies. That's where our young people live. Those are the folks who can support them once they return to their homes. And therefore, we're committed to making sure that our staff are trained with respect to the dynamics of gang involvement in as you proceed into your conversation about gang violence. Far too many of the young people in our custody are there because they are charged with gang violence. And so targeting the core factors that affect what's happening in the communities where these young people live is in fact the goal for us. So while I would agree that staff shortages have probably created some of the most difficult challenges for our organization, and we're not alone. As we look at hospitals and schools and other institutions that are facing the very same challenges, we continue to work toward finding effective solutions. We've invested in recruitment and hiring strategies that include marketing, that include incentives. And one of the items on your agenda for today focuses on incentives as well. And so I would say that. While we have had some difficulties in keeping sufficient staff to to program our young people in the way that we normally would, I would say that when that when we have sufficient folks who are working from day to day, that is exactly what we do. And we will continue to do that moving forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for addressing that question. Councilmember Perry, did you want to have any follow up?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Chair. Well, I can share that and thank you, director designee announce again. Very good to see you. And I've appreciated our conversations and and your interest in stepping up into this as a permanent position. I admit that I have not read the CJC Monitor report and I know that that gave the executives team some clarity around some of these issues. And so I commit to doing that. I also know that we are going to be visiting the center on August 31st. And as I came in and.
Speaker 5: The new position, I was encouraged.
Speaker 4: To visit the Seattle facility that I think it's the Kent facilities that it's in Kansas and and then the center, the Juvenile Justice Center. So I I'm interested or juvenile? Yes, I am interested in being able to take a look at their space and to hear the concerns. And my.
Speaker 5: Question, I guess.
Speaker 4: Is hearing everything that you've said and understanding that there since I started in January, there is just a huge number, additional number of residents in the Juvenile Justice Center. So I am now, you know, sympathetic to the combined lack of staffing and need for training and increased population and the challenges that that brings. So that said, I'm wondering what those who are bringing forward these questions or these concerns.
Speaker 5: Might.
Speaker 4: Say would be the unique.
Speaker 5: Concerns they.
Speaker 4: Have, knowing that this situation would impact any director. Anybody coming forward in that circumstance would have an untenable job, a very difficult job. And anybody stepping into that space is courageous, at least. And so so I'm wondering if there are distinctions that are being made specific to you as a director. And I don't know if you can answer any of those. I know that, you know, some sometimes there are politics or personalities or things like that that go into this. But I'm interested in that that question specifically knowing that all of these things are in play and would be in play for anyone. And so I do look forward to the visit and I look forward to doing my job of reading the Monitor report so that I understand more closely where those issues have been addressed and possibly where they have it.
Speaker 6: Well, we welcome the opportunity to have the council members visit the Family Justice Center. We're very proud of the work that we do there, and I'm extremely proud of the staff who are so committed to our young people. So I encourage you to have conversations with them when you visit. I think you will get a variety of perspectives from the folks who work there. But suffice it to say that I'm committed and my leadership team is committed to making sure that we tackle the challenges that we face each and every day with deliberateness, with urgency , with consistency, because we know that's the right thing to do for the young people that we have in custody. And I often say to my staff, I think about these young people as know you would think about your own child. What would you want for them? How would you want the system to respond to their needs? And that is the commitment that we bring to the work that we do.
Speaker 4: I remember that from our conversation as well. And it wasn't well. And I appreciate that.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you both. Are there any other questions of director designate Nancy?
Speaker 2: Dombrowski.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Dombrowski, go right ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And as I've raised before, including most recently in our Budget Committee meeting, the smart broker got very serious concerns about the situation at the juvenile detention facility with respect to basically noncompliance with our with our law and state law telling ordinance and state law about making sure youth are not confined in cells. And I understand the cause of that is, is largely the staffing issue.
Speaker 3: But I.
Speaker 2: I but I want to understand more about is how it was, how we got to this crisis.
Speaker 3: Situation.
Speaker 2: You know, may be kind of the, the parable of the the frog in the boiling pot. The warm water gets warmer, warmer, warmer. By the time it's boiling, it's too late.
Speaker 3: But I don't feel we.
Speaker 2: I'd like to understand how we got there, but that we dialog a little bit about that and I won't be joining the visit on August 31st. In addition to the Monitor's report, I've also read the employee search base for the juvenile division of the adult division and the results aren't good. So just put it bluntly, the employees there are not happy. And turning to the adult jail, we recently had a few hour period where we stopped taking bookings. We've had five deaths at least this year, noncompliance with state law and reporting on those deaths as documented in the Seattle Times. And for years now, years later by the Council, our corrections officers have come to us with really what I point to legitimate concerns about forced overtime and some of the very severe and director designee announced. I guess my question to you is what is your plan at the adult facility to make sure we one, keep it open in Seattle and two, with respect to both of them, the catch your mailing a regional nurses center down there and then our Seattle one. What is what is your specific plan to address this chronic problem of mandatory overtime which degrades morale and really is a probably a problem with recruitment, too? I think it's time we really tackle this. Well, thank you for.
Speaker 6: The question, Councilmember Dombrowski. And let me say that first and foremost, we're extremely fortunate to have an office labor relations that is very engaged and has been working very closely with us and our labor partners, particularly the Corrections Skill Guild, with respect to the challenges we face with mandatory overtime. And we've been able to craft some agreements with our Adult Guild to be able to incentivize our folks to voluntarily work overtime. Unfortunately, we have a number of folks who have overtime restrictions that limits their ability to to work either voluntary or mandatory overtime or both. And since we've been able to craft some agreements to incentivize overtime, we've actually seen more folks voluntarily working overtime for those individuals who are working the mandatory overtime shifts or working multiple shifts in the day. We've created some opportunities for hotel stays so that they don't have to drive long distances to get home, only to turn around and come back again. We've been very committed to facilitating opportunities to ease some of the burdens that these folks have with respect to getting their their uniforms cleaned by creating some opportunities for some dry cleaning services. We've looked at a number of those strategies, and I will say that since we've implemented the incentives for folks to work overtime, that we have more folks working voluntary overtime. So that certainly reduces the need for mandatory overtime. But at the end of the day, we have to grow our workforce. We have to identify folks who are interested and committed to working in corrections as a form of public service to community to make sure that we have sufficient folks in those positions. Right now, we have 92 vacancies at our correctional officer ranks. And as you heard earlier, 22 vacancies at the June. The detention officer ranks. Those are huge holes to fill. And the fact remains that the over 1500 folks that we have in custody in our jail and the 42 young people we have in our juvenile facility, they're there 24 hours a day and we have to be there for them 24 hours a day. So that means we have to have sufficient numbers of folks working in order to make sure that we're fulfilling those obligations. So there is no singular strategy here. It is a combined effort with respect to recruiting, hiring and retaining the workforce that we have. But that also means that we have to find ways to consolidate. So we were able to move some of the folks that we had in custody at Kent down to the correctional facility in Seattle , so that we could also move some of those staff, consolidate and leverage those resources and staffing resources more effectively. And we will continue to look at other opportunities to to address these very vexing, challenging needs that we have in our justice system. But let me just say that. We spent every single day looking at ways to solve these problems. And as you are, director, I intend to make this a high priority, and I've communicated that to the Corrections Guild when I met with them on June 29th in their offices. And I'm committing that to to you and the public today, that we will continue to work on these problems because we are committed to solving them.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Okay with that, I. Councilmember Belge.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. I recognize that there's some interest in getting more information, and I hope that will put those requests on the table here today. I'm sorry. I was a little late, so I don't know if that's been done or not. But if there are requests for more information before we act, I hope that members will state them. In the meantime, I'd like to make a motion to move this out of committee with the do pass recommendation.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Bell Tucci, who did make a request to hear if there are any comments in terms of perhaps holding off. And so, Councilmember Perry, it's hard to see that hand on your background.
Speaker 4: Is it?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: Sir.
Speaker 1: Go right ahead. Thank you.
Speaker 4: I am very supportive of director designee dance and would love to see this appointment go through. I also am feeling like, you know, we have.
Speaker 5: A visit which has been requested.
Speaker 4: Of everybody that I've visited, different folks in Seattle and they are very appreciative as director Nance is of council visiting and hearing the different positions and I know that different people have different positions about this. Feel differently, some supportive, some some challenging. And so I want out of.
Speaker 1: Interest in.
Speaker 5: To support those voices and to participate as council members.
Speaker 4: In this process, knowing that we already have that visit set up for the 31st. It would be helpful to be able to go through that. But that experience and to do my due diligence, which I apologize for not doing it to this point, I'm reading the monitor report. I'd like to do that and I know that that nine Justice are having a presentation on that. I think it's next week as well. So I just would like to see the possibility of having the opportunity to visit and to have discussions and to read that report and then have the vote for the appointment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Perez. So the request is to defer action of to our next meeting, which I believe is September 7th. Councilmember Belge.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I think the the timeline can meet both of these both of these interests if we are willing to be flexible. I would strongly urge my colleagues not to defer moving this out of committee until September. But if we move it out of here today and we can do that without recommendation, we can take it up instead of taking it up in the normal course, which would be two weeks from today. We could take it up the week after that. That's two weeks plus a one week courtesy delay. And that would allow for the August 31st tour to happen whatever discussions and additional due diligence members want to have between now and then and then take up a vote on, you know, on on final passage in early September instead of it being in mid to late September. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember about two g. Councilmember Perry, do you want to respond to that?
Speaker 4: Yes, I think that's a great idea.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else have any comment to make? Okay. And I think our councilmembers are. Hello. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Chair. Cole Wells. I'm also sorry for being late. I thought we were starting at our usual 930 time. That was my fault for not checking the calendar for the special. For the special time. But I also want to state my support for Director Nance and also validate all of the concerns that we've heard from our union members and the things that Councilmember Dombrowski listed. I think all of those things are true. At the same time, we're living through crisis times right now, the macro environment that impacts our jail systems, that is all very real stuff that is impacting our operations. And I take very seriously the things that we've heard from the Guild and I've met with them multiple times. I've requested an audit. You know, we have independent monitors, reports. We're constantly inviting the director to law and justice to report out the things that are happening in the jails and asking them difficult questions. We're honoring budget requests. We're meeting with the Guild multiple times. We're taking our oversight role very seriously. And so I just want to put that out there so that it doesn't seem like supporting the director is a dismissal of the valid concerns that we're hearing. Those both of those things can be true at the same time. I haven't heard an argument that would lead us to the conclusion that not supporting the director would lead to better outcomes, you know, going through a whole new system of further causing disruption to the operations, going through a whole new interview process and national search and all. To me that sounds extremely disruptive, especially toward a candidate who has been responsive to the requests that we've been making. And so I just wanted to put that out there as chair of law and Justice that we take all of these super valid concerns seriously. There don't seem to be easy answers that are that are just the silver bullet for how do we solve the staffing crisis, how do we solve the macro environment of a behavioral health crisis and a housing crisis and all the other issues that feed into extremely difficult operations in the jails? I don't have the clear answer to that, but I don't think the answer is to cause further issues through this process by not supporting the directors confirmation. So I just wanted to put that out there as a few thoughts. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, council members. I think that was particularly well stated and really eloquent and I appreciate everything that you said. Any other comments? Councilmember Bell, did she I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Perry I just wanted to share. Thank you. Chair Colwell So I just wanted to share my appreciation for Councilmember Hill's perspective and usual thoughtful depth of understanding and commitment to many levels of justice in the deliberation of these issues. So I appreciate the response and. And I. And then that carries a lot of weight as chair of Law and Justice Committee and because of the due diligence that that he has shared in that perspective. So I just want to show my level of appreciation for that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay. We will now turn to Councilmember Bell duty.
Speaker 1: Just before we vote, I wanted to make the change to the motion that we move it out without recommendation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So that motion is before us. Is there any comment at this point? Okay with that. Will the clerk please call the RO on proposed motion? 2020 20269.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your Councilmember Balducci. Councilmember. Councilmember Dombrowski.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Dunn. I Council member McDermott.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Perry i.
Speaker 1: Councilmember up the growth.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Council Member van ryk bauer.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Council members alkali.
Speaker 3: II.
Speaker 1: Charcoal wells.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Charcoal wells. The vote is.
Speaker 1: 8i0 nos with Councilmember McDermott excused.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And with our vote, we have approved proposed motion 2020 20269. We will send this to the full council without recommendation. And with that, we will now go on to our next item on our agenda. Number six, proposed ordinance 2020 20300.
|
Motion
|
A MOTION confirming the appointment of Allen Nance as the director of the department of adult and juvenile detention.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_08172022_2022-0300
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. And with our vote, we have approved proposed motion 2020 20269. We will send this to the full council without recommendation. And with that, we will now go on to our next item on our agenda. Number six, proposed ordinance 2020 20300. And this one relates to referral bonuses for non represented county employees, for referring employees to the positions of deputy sheriff, corrections officer and detention officer. And we have Jeff Mumm from our central staff to provide the briefing on this item. We are also joined by Richard Hayes from the Department of Human Resources. So with that, Jeff, please proceed. And I think it starts on page 16.
Speaker 3: That is correct. Madam Chair. Thank you. Chair corrals for the record, Jeff, ma'am, chief policy officer for the County Council. So as you pointed out, the STACK report for this item starts on page 16 and this is proposed ordinance 2020 203, 100. This would offer referral bonuses of $5,000 to county employees who refer candidates who are then successfully hired and serve as correction officers, detention officers and sheriff deputies. This would apply to non representing employees and it is substantively identical to the proposals that the Council approved in July for the represented employees. And just as a refresher, the provisions of the the proposed ordinance are that only one bonus would be offered to an employee for referring a successful candidate. Those candidates would have to not only be hired by the departments, but also complete the probationary period before the bonus would be paid out. Employees cannot refer themselves to be employed, to be hired as a as a deputy or corrections officer, detention officer. And also, if it's your job to recruit people for this position, you're not you wouldn't be eligible for the bonus at C at the it expires on December 31st, 2022. So candidates would have to have their applications in by that day and is expected because they would have to be hired and then go through the probationary period that the payouts won't happen until 2023. And there is also a technical strike or amendment to the underlying ordinance, but that's the summary and happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jeff, very much. Are there any questions? Okay with that. This measure is sponsored by Council Members Bill Dutchie and done. And Councilmember Bill, do you would you like to make the motion and speak to the happy.
Speaker 1: To move approval of the motion with a to pass recommendation or ordinance for the do pass recommendation. And just as was said, we've already done this for the represented employee. So represented employees who meet the criteria that were just described throughout King County are currently now or soon will be eligible for this bonus and this will add non represented employee. So now we're expanding the group of people who can have this incentive to refer folks. I will just say that as we have been just talking about, one of the root causes, one of the key root causes of the challenges we're seeing in juvenile detention and adult detention and in the sheriff's office is a real large vacancy rate. And what we can do here at the council is we set policy, we set law, we set budgets, and so we can help to provide funding to incentivize filling those holes. I'm very happy to support this. I want to say that as we go into the biennial budget process in September and beyond, we now have hiring incentives in place for these kind of headhunting hiring incentives, but also just incentives for people to take the jobs we may have to. Given what's going on out in the world, we may have to revisit the amounts we may need to make these more attractive. And I really hope that we talk about that during the budget process. But this is a good step for now and I urge your support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Bowdich. And we we do have an amendment and I believe that's a striking amendment. Or is that a technical?
Speaker 3: It's a it is both. It is a technical striking amendment. It clarifies some language and then it pulls in language from the previous agreements just to show an example of there's a job fair example, for example, of just to clarify what type of work disqualifies you for the bonus.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Jeff. And I should have brought up again that Mr. Richard Hayes is with us from the Department of Human Resources. I don't know if Richard would like to say anything or available for questions.
Speaker 2: For the record, Richard Hayes, a senior policy adviser in the Department of Human Resources. And no, I don't have anything to add, but I would urge your support.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Hayes?
Speaker 1: Have a lengthy series of questions for Mr. Hayes? No, I'm just kidding.
Speaker 3: Thank you, council member, for your question.
Speaker 1: For the record, Rick hired me at King County many years ago. Yeah, I've worked for him before, so just a little hazy. Welcome. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Are there any questions among any of the members of the committee? Okay. With that, we have a striking amendment. Would you like to make the motion councilmember do?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm. Move. Adoption of the striking amendment.
Speaker 0: Any questions or comments? All. All in favor indicate by saying i. I.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: I any oppose say name could be strike an amendment striking technical amendment or technical striking amendment has been adopted. Any further comments? Anything to close Councilmember Bell, do she or I should say Councilmember Dunn as well? Councilmember Janice ISO is a co-sponsor of this legislation.
Speaker 3: I agree with everything. My good friend and colleague, Councilmember Bell, she said moment ago, but I'm glad, I'm glad we're doing this and we should revisit the amounts as you saw Seattle that a significant increase in theirs as well as we come up to budget.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Thank you. Okay. And could I clerk please call the roll?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Count charcoals. Councilmember Baldacci. Councilmember Dombrowski.
Speaker 2: By.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Dunn.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Councilmember McDermott. Councilmember Perry.
Speaker 1: I councilmember up the growth i. Councilmember von Reich Bauer. I Councilmember Zavala.
Speaker 4: I chair Caldwell's.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Turco was the vote is eight eyes zero.
Speaker 1: Noes with Councilmember McDermott excused.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And with our vote we have approved proposed ordinance 2020 20300. As amended, we will send this ordinance with the do pass recommendation for the consent agenda to the September 6th Council meeting. The next item on our agenda is our third briefing on the topic of preventing gun violence.
|
Ordinance
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to employee referral bonuses for nonrepresented county employees for referring employees to the positions of deputy sheriff, corrections officer and detention officer; and establishing an expiration date.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_07202022_2022-0210
|
Speaker 0: Okay. So we'd like to now have Sam Choi, who goes by he him and Christina Fogg, who goes by she her to join us. And I welcome you and I congratulate you on the appointments. And it is the council's responsibility to have you come before us and answer some questions. And then we will take action today on moving your names, your appointments to the full council for confirmation of your appointment. And let's take that as Mr. Choi first, who serves as the Training and Technical Assistance Coaching Coordinator for Game City. And Jeff, where you going to go over each person's background a little bit.
Speaker 3: I think it's probably best for their appointees to do that, but I can do that for the ones.
Speaker 0: Okay. We'll go ahead and let the appointment. I'm just going there. Usually that's how we do it with the staff report. But Mr. Choi, Sam, would you please provide us a little bit about your background and your reasons for wanting to serve on this task force? And welcome.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good morning. My name is Sam. I use him pronouns and like you said, I am the training and technical assistance coordinator at Case City. We are going through a rebranding right now, so we will be changing our name to Seattle's Automated Compliance Center. Like I said, I graduated with a psychology degree u dub and I am a first generation queer and trans immigrant and a queer person living in Seattle. And through my work I work with acutely bipoc so queer and trans black indigenous people of color, youth, and we center bipoc youth in all of the work that we do . And through my work I connect with organizations, hospitals, businesses, whoever to meet their needs and becoming queer and trans competent. And I really hope to bring forth more compassion and care for queer and trans individuals and beyond comprehension.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, thank you very much. Have you attended one of the meetings yet?
Speaker 3: Yes, I have. I have since April, when our previous executive director, Fred, left, I kind of took over his role in the task force. And so I've attended three meetings so far.
Speaker 0: Oh, good. Yeah. Any thoughts about the meetings and what you're getting yourself into?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I am. I think I'm still opening pieces together, but I understand the critical needs of having this task force of meeting to have various queer individuals in their room to understand and assess and make recommendations to ensure that Kent County as a whole can better support queer and trans rights.
Speaker 0: Well, it appears that you're an outstanding new member of the task force, and it appears like you're really enjoying your work on it thus far after attending three main meetings. So I think you'll do great. Do any of my colleagues on the committee have any questions to ask of San. The Council members are. Hello. And good morning.
Speaker 3: Good morning. Thanks so much for volunteering to be on this task force. I'm really appreciate your help. Could you just speak to some of your goals with the task force? What are your priorities? Yeah, I think I kind of spoke about it earlier. I work primarily with Bipoc youth in the work that I do currently and I feel like, you know, Bipoc youth are often left out of the conversation. Adult ism is a very critical thing and we do not give a lot of agency autonomy to youth. And so I really hope, through my experience working with them, to really center their voices and their experiences. So I am I'm healing from COVID and to really bring their voices and their experiences to the table as well. Tam, thank you so much. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any more questions? Well, thank you very much, Sam. Again, we'll be taking up a vote on your appointment shortly. And really pleased to have you with us today. And again, congratulations on your appointment. All right. And we also have with us Christina Fogg, who has been appointed as well and is the new member of the council staff or council member. DEMBOSKY has just joined us. Good morning.
|
Motion
|
A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Sam Choi, to the King County gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force, representing Gay City.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_07202022_2022-0211
|
Speaker 0: And we also have with us Christina Fogg, who has been appointed as well and is the new member of the council staff or council member. DEMBOSKY has just joined us. Good morning.
Speaker 3: Good morning.
Speaker 0: Morning. So, Christine, Christina, would you please go ahead and speak on your behalf and then we'll hear from Council member Tomasky, I believe, as well. And if you could let us know what motivated you to be appointed to the task force and what you hope to work on?
Speaker 4: Sure. Thanks for having me this morning. Yeah. I recently joined Council member Dombroski staff in April. Prior to that, I was a lawyer for 16 years, the last nine of which was at the U.S. Attorney's Office here in Seattle representing the Western District of Washington. And my role there was as the coordinator for their civil civil rights program. And I mostly dealt with responding to complaints in the community about various forms of discrimination and violations of federal civil rights statutes. So this particular task force appealed to me because a lot of what I saw in my prior work was, you know, what happens when organizations don't have an inclusive culture or policies and procedures and norms and all the things that contribute to a culture of making a welcoming, inclusive place. So I was really excited to be part of something that is addressing those issues in a proactive and systemic way. And so I jumped at the opportunity to be that council representative.
Speaker 0: Well, I'm so pleased that you did. You have a terrific background and I know will being bring a great amount to the task force council members to be asking, do you have anything you'd like to say?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't want to kill the nomination.
Speaker 6: Here by messing it.
Speaker 2: Up. But thank you for your willingness to serve, Christina. And I think your background, as you've articulated here with your civil rights experience at the United States Justice Department, will be super helpful. But Christina also has a long history of other service charcoal wells, including a board member and mentor with the Joint Minority Bar Association Association Mentorship Program Service with the YWCA as a cooperating lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington here in Seattle, and also with the King County Housing Justice Project. So I think her significant experience and her expertize in civil rights will do well. I wanted to take this moment to thank you and your office, particularly Jonathan Fowler, who was the prior council representative to the task force. And he's gotten busy with commitments and other obligations. And so his service has been exemplary. And Christina is going to be, if approved here today, following in his footsteps to have that council rep there. So that's the background on on why we're having this nomination here. But I would appreciate colleagues support for Christina and the other nominees today.
Speaker 0: Terrific. Thank you very much. Councilmember Jim Baskin. It appears that Christina has another virtue of being very modest, but although sometimes one should be very forthright about all of their accomplishments and attributes. Christina, you seem to have a whole lot of them. So I think this is an excellent appointment that's been made. I congratulate you on that and I look forward to hearing from you as you report back to the council on what is going on with this task force. I do think.
Speaker 4: That.
Speaker 0: You're welcome. Does anybody have any questions of Christina on? I don't see anyone. Okay with that we will go. And we, the other two have not arrived. So we will go ahead and let's let's both take up all four names. People are busy and we get very busy too. So I'd like to have a motion. Councilmember Dombroski, would you like to make the motion?
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. Thank you so much for all.
Speaker 0: There are four motions you're actually.
Speaker 2: I move that we give a do pass recommendation to motions 2020 2010013014. And I think is 012. This note say here to ten so.
Speaker 3: It's 210 and 0 to 1 zero 0 to 1 10213 in 0 to 1 fourth.
Speaker 2: Okay not to 12 to 11. To 10 to 11 to 13 to 14.
Speaker 3: That's weird.
Speaker 2: Or as the agenda reflects. If we've got that wrong.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are there any questions or comments? I think we will find it before us. Councilmember McDermott.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Chair Wells. I didn't have any questions for any for Sam and Kristina, but I want to express my appreciation to both of them and all four of the nominees for considering today and to acknowledge the role of the importance of the task force to represent the LGBTQ, the queer community in King County, and ensure that that voice is present within county government that we're aware of impacts that intentional and unintentional that we may be having in the community and how important it is that King County, our agencies benefit from a established resource for us to be informed and benefit from the conversations and information and experiences of the queer community as we legislate and do our work.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman McDermott, for that very well stated comment. I couldn't agree with you more. And it's it's tremendous when I look over the whole roster, too, of this task force, very, very impressive individuals, the ones I know, and then the ones that I don't know, but that I have read about. And of course, we had them all before us earlier. So with that, if there are no checklist. Yes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Oh, it's Councilmember Perry.
Speaker 0: I can't remember. I'm still getting used to looking off at the wall for Zoom when being in the chamber. And I somehow missed you. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just also want to share on Echo what Councilmember McDermott expressed and that how important it is that people are stepping forward and participating and and and keeping everything. Keeping people aware and asking folks to. To pay attention to the civil liberties of all. Recently, in the last six months, we have looked at non gendered language and are working hard on council to refrain from Madam Chair, Mr. Chair and Madam Speaker, Mr. Speaker, and things like this, and instead simply refer to people by their title. And it creates more of an egalitarian or not egalitarian, but but a respectful space of inclusion is the intention. So I look forward to hearing the task force's assessment of how we're doing on that and any recommendations for how we might improve as the Council. Our reflection of inclusion in the language that we choose to to use on the dais and in public view as well as private. So I just really appreciate all the work and potential work and and folks willing to step forward in this task force. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Kay. With that, our Kirk will please call the roll.
|
Motion
|
A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Christina Fogg, to the King County gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force, as the King County council representative.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_07202022_2022-0214
|
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Kay. With that, our Kirk will please call the roll.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Chair calls Councilmember. Excuse me. Councilmember Balducci.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Dombrowski.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Dunn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember McDermott.
Speaker 3: Oh, hi.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Perry. I councilmember up the grove.
Speaker 1: Councilmember up the growth. Council member Von Reich Bauer.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: Councilman Barzagli.
Speaker 3: Hi. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Council member of the group. Council members. Charlie.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Councilman or charcoal wells. Circle wells. The vote is nine eyes, zero nose key.
Speaker 0: With our vote, we've approved, I believe, proposed motions. 2020 2021002130214. And what is the fourth 100211? The numbers weren't quite right on our script here. And we will send these motions with the do pass recommendation for the consent agenda to the August 16th Council meeting. And for those of you who are listening in and those two candidates who are here, there is no reason for you to appear at that council meeting on August 16th. You will be notified, of course, if you would like to be with us here in the chamber or on Zoom. That, of course, is just fine. Okay. Our next item on our agenda is the motion sponsored by Councilmember Sali Reck, requesting that the executive develop an operational plan for sheltering the most vulnerable King County residents in the event of extreme cold heat or wildlife smoke, which is going on right now in central Washington.
|
Motion
|
A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Agaiotupu Viena, to the King County gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force, representing the United Territories of Pacific Islanders Alliance (U.T.O.P.I.A.).
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_07202022_2022-0197
|
Speaker 0: That, of course, is just fine. Okay. Our next item on our agenda is the motion sponsored by Councilmember Sali Reck, requesting that the executive develop an operational plan for sheltering the most vulnerable King County residents in the event of extreme cold heat or wildlife smoke, which is going on right now in central Washington. We were briefed on the proposed motion at our last meeting, and as I understand, we have a proposed striking amendment today. We will hear from council members July, but we have, I believe, Jennie Giambattista with our central staff to provide a short briefing on this item since we had one earlier. And also on the striking amendment, we also have Mina Hashimi, Brenda McClusky and Caroline Whalen here from the executive branch to answer any questions if they come up and four members. Just a reminder, we are going until noon today. We started half an hour early and I expect we will be able to finish all items. Okay, Jennie, please go ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilmember Cole Wells. Good morning. Members of the committee, Jennie. John but Keith, the council staff. I will be discussing the proposed motion 2020 20197, which does begin on page 25 of your packet as a recap of the discussion on July six in CAO. The proposed motion requested the executive develop an operational plan for sheltering the most vulnerable residents in the event of extreme cold heat or wildfire smoke. I've updated the staff report to respond to questions from the last meeting. The updates are in blue. On page 27, you can see an update from executive staff. They provided more information on the current status and their planning efforts. On page 28, the third of the packet, there's additional information on fatalities and EMS calls from the heat dome. And on page 35 of the packet, executive staff note that they will need to assess the budget availability for the work, but they anticipate needing at least one dedicated resource to manage the work. If there are no questions on the underlying motion, I can now go over council members striking an amendment which was developed with executive staff
Speaker 0: . Thank you, Jennie. Just one moment. Does anybody have any questions on what Jennie has briefed us thus far? I hope you all had the opportunity to to read over the additions to the staff report that reflected the executive branch's comments from the last meeting. Okay. And before you start, Jenny, going over the amendment. Councilmembers, I do you have anything you want to say at this point is wait till after Jenny's through.
Speaker 3: After Jenny, please. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Jenny. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember. The striking amendment is on page 43 of the packet. I have also included a version showing changes and that's on page 53 of the packet. There's also a title amendment as well. So starting with the striking amendment on page 43, I'll walk through some of the substantive changes. The most substantive change is the body of work is expanded to include planning for disaster shelters, not just extreme weather shelters. Executive staff requested this change because they noted that if they were bringing together all the stakeholders to do this planning work, it made sense to discuss emergency sheltering overall, given that they would be talking about sheltering for particular types of emergency. The next substantive change is the striker removes the date by which the executive shall begin to offer expanded sheltering. The next change is the requirement for the executive to conduct community outreach in low income communities and unhoused communities in unincorporated King County, to gather information on the location and features that would result in the highest shelter utilization. It's changed, and it's changed such that the outreach to unhoused communities is removed, and instead such outreach is encouraged by the Regional Homelessness Authority. Additionally, the request that such outreach also seek to identify other community needs in responding to extreme weather shelters is also removed. The striker adds language to clarify and provide details on the information requested for those King County facilities that are currently serving as disaster and extreme weather shelters and those that could do so with improvements. There is also language added to clarify and provide details on the requested information for non county owned facilities. And the information on whether long term care assistance facilities and family care homes have air conditioning is now requested only if it is available from the State Department of Social and Health Services. The request for a plan to offer hotel vouchers that was part of the motion as well as introduced is changed so that it's now a request to consider with the Regional Homelessness Authority and City Partners the use of vouchers for accommodations, or they use activities for the most vulnerable residents. And the due date for the operational plan is changed from February 28th, 2023 to June 30th, 2024. Councilmember. I would also note that there's a title amendment so that the title conforms to the strike. So those are the major changes in the strike, or I'm happy to answer questions and as you indicated. Councilmember Cole. Well, we also have executive staff here as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jenny, for your outstanding staff report, as always. And we do have a question from Councilmember Bell. Did she.
Speaker 4: Sorry. That was an error. I apologize. I'm good.
Speaker 0: Okay. No question. Are there any questions? Council member Perry.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Chair Coles. I appreciate that. I am wondering, you know, that originally or in our last discussion about this, I had mentioned language specific to providing equipment heating, cooling and air filtering equipment. So the language is outreach. Efforts should also seek to identify other community needs in responding to extreme weather events. And after.
Speaker 0: The whole.
Speaker 4: I'm just wondering if there's a place in this to call those specific things out, because part of the issue is people not a big part of the issue with the deaths was people not having access to air conditioning, cooling, heating and air filter filtration areas that are not able to move to different spaces. So so people can locate and if they're living outside, that hasn't has a specific focus in in making sure that folks get to appropriate shelter if they're living inside and they don't have heating, cooling or air filtration systems as senior citizens, as of folks living with disabilities, different kinds of experiences who could benefit greatly from those those specific kinds of equipment. I'm just wondering if it can be called out more specifically or if there's just if we're wanting to keep it that open and that that that made. Councilmember Perry, if I may, just clarify the language specifically requesting information on other needs that language is and struck. So okay. So and so with that clarification, I will turn I think it would be appropriate to ask the executive staff what their plans are in addition to conducting outreach on the location and features that would result in the higher shelter utilization. That to ask the executive staff what additional. Information they're going to be querying on in terms of the needs of the community? Well, exactly the question I would like to ask then. There we are. That is a good.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 4: So we do have Caroline Whalen from a director of the Department of the Executive Services and then we also have OPM director Brendan McCluskey available as well. Sharon Wells If you if you would. I don't know how you would like to address that, but I would that would be great.
Speaker 0: I Council Member Perry. I will leave some room here right now if either Director McCluskey or Director Whalen would like to respond. I would like to remind people we are in a tight time frame, so I appreciate having any questions or remarks being made as brief as possible. So anybody from our executive staff would like to respond.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Chair Caldwell. So I will just say briefly that we are interested in doing a needs assessment as we do outreach. We are expecting to get a report from the City of Seattle of some outreach work that they did. My understanding is one of the findings is that people will say, yes, they want government to supply.
Speaker 1: Cooling centers are warm, wet, you know, heating centers, but they want it for other people. They really want to stay where they are.
Speaker 4: And I really understand, Councilmember Perry, what you're saying is some people can't move. And so what is it that they need? So we will be doing a needs assessment.
Speaker 1: And doing our best to accommodate, you know, our residents and visitors. And I don't know, Brendan, if you want to add to that, if that would be okay with the chair.
Speaker 0: Okay. Go right ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thanks. I don't know that I have much to add to that. I think that, you know, we want to take a very comprehensive and complete approach to this so that we want to look at every potential option that's out there. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'd again like to say, as I did at our last meeting, there are many long term health care facilities and resident facilities that do not have air conditioning. My mother and rather a friend of mine was in one of those before she died, no air conditioning and it was really, really challenging. So I'm hopeful that this issue will also be addressed. Okay. Are there any other questions? K Council member C Yeah, council members. SA Hello, would you like to make a motion?
Speaker 3: So move chair Caldwell's.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have a motion for proposed motion 2020 20197 before us. We do have a striking amendment which has been explained. Would you like to move that? Council members. Hello.
Speaker 3: So move. Check.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And would you like to speak to that council members?
Speaker 3: Thank you. Absolutely. I think making good policy as council members requires that we work collaboratively with the executive branch. They're the ones who will implement our legislation, and they are also subject matter experts, whereas I'm not. So I fully support the striking amendment and making it more implementable and in the spirit of collaboration. I want to thank Director McClusky, Director Whalen, Rena Hashemi, Karen Gill, King County Regional Homelessness Authority, who have been super responsive and collaborative, like I said before. So I, I encourage your support on this striking amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Member And does anybody else have anything to say on this or have a question?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Dombroski.
Speaker 2: I just want to take a moment to thank Councilmember Xilai for this thoughtful and forward looking piece of legislation that's going to, I think, become increasingly necessary as our climate extremes present themselves. And it's a longer term project, maybe with some shorter term deliverables, but it's really good and thoughtful work, and I wanted to commend him publicly for it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember building to.
Speaker 4: Thank you this time was intentional. I also want to say I think in looking through the staff report and listening to discussion, this fits well in with, I think, a multi-tiered plan because we have to work in the short term and the long term. The executive's study appears to look at ways to mitigate heat, which is a very big and long term project. And councilmembers are always not in talks about sheltering people when because we are going to have extreme heat events. And I just really wanted to point out that this morning Craig is already in process of activating their response tier network approach to the projected coming here. That looks like we're going to get up into the nineties next week. And so we have we have.
Speaker 3: Work going on at.
Speaker 4: All scales. And then now in the short term, in the long term and just for those anyone who might be watching what the message this morning said is that the Tier one response will make funding for cooling supplies available to homeless service providers up to $2,000. And if if you are someone who provides emergency shelter, day center or outreach, you should reach out to KCR today because the this this money's available now.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. That's very helpful information, especially given that from what I've heard, the Puget Sound area here has the least amount of air conditioners of any major equivalent American city and and metropolitan areas. So we're going to be expecting we'll have some hard times next week, everybody, but we worry particularly about our most vulnerable and as citizens, residents. Okay. Are there any other comments? Okay. All in favor of striking amendment one. Please say I. I hear any polls say now, Kate, the amendment has been adopted. We now have title amendment one, and that is to correspond with the changes made in striking Amendment one. Any questions? All in favor of title. Oh, we have to have a motion to move it.
Speaker 3: Kind of move.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmembers. Hello. All in favor of title amendment one. Please say I, I. Any no's? Please say no. Okay. With that, we have a title. Amendment one has been adopted and we now move on for a proposed motion. 2020 20197 as amended. I would like to just say that I as well I'm very appreciative of Councilman Rizal I bringing. Forward. It's, I believe, really improving what the executive had already been working on and brings a lot more public awareness to it when we have this. So Councilor Basile, I do have any final comments.
Speaker 3: In addition to the people I already thanked, I want to thank our legislative branch teammates Jenny, Jim Batista, Jake Tracy, Rosa Mai for all their great work on bringing this vision into a reality. Thank you, everyone.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I should have asked if anybody else had any comments. Okay with that. Would the clerk please call the roll?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Chair calls. Councilmember Belushi.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember done.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember McDermott.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Perry. I. Councilmember up the grove i. Councilmember Yvonne Reich Bauer. Councilmember Zala.
Speaker 0: I chair Caldwell's I.
Speaker 1: Turco. Well, as the vote is eight eyes zero nose with Councilmember Yvonne Reich Bauer excused.
Speaker 0: Kay thank you. With our vote we've approved proposed motion 2020 20197 as amended, and we will place this item on consent unless there's concern on that and we will send it with the do pass recommendation for the consent agenda to the August 16th Council meeting. Unfortunately, King County TV is having some technical issues, so we will take a brief recess. For how long do you expect? 5 minutes. So we will be on a five minute recess. Thank you. Okay. It appears we are ready to go. So I will call the meeting. The results over concluded and we will be back in our meeting. Now the next item on our agenda is the first of two panel briefings we are having today on the topic of preventing gun violence.
|
Motion
|
A MOTION requesting that the executive develop a regional operational plan for extreme weather centers and disaster sheltering, with a special focus on the most-vulnerable King County residents.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_07202022_2022-0221
|
Speaker 0: Good Eleuthera excuse me are Luther Eilish and Brandon Shell. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We will now go on to our last agenda item for today is a motion requesting the King County executive assess the feasibility of establishing a year round voluntary safe firearm and ammunition return program within the King County Sheriff's Office. This is proposed motion 2020 20221 introduced by Councilmember Dombroski. And we do have Andy McLeod to. Rufus. That will start on page 120. And Jesse Anderson, King County undersheriff, I believe, was joining us. And he is here as well. And we were going to take up legislation at our next meeting, August 17th. And I hope that there will be more that will be introduced by then, that I know that Councilmember DEMBOSKY has been so eager to get this going because it is so important. And I'm wondering if you want to say a few things before we hear from Andy for a briefing. Council Members.
Speaker 2: Dan Bass Thank you, Chair Caldwell's and thank you, colleagues. I want to start by thanking the panelists for their courage and compelling stories this morning. And I ask for their forgiveness. I had to personally leave the dais and listen from the side room because it was just extremely difficult for at least part of the presentations. But I was paying close attention, and one of the things that we heard repeatedly from the guests today was the devastating results that are consistent with the overwhelming statistics that result from having firearms in a home. You know, three quarters of deaths in Washington are suicide. And the research shows that when you have a firearm in the home, the risk of death and injury is exponentially off the charts compared to homes that don't have firearms. One recent study in California focusing just on handguns. Not long guns, but handguns showed that homes with a handgun were three times more common to have deaths than than those without. And of course, the impacts are disproportionately felt by women who are, frankly, the victims of intimate partner violence and people of color as well. So this legislation, Jericho Wells, which you have co-sponsored along with councilmembers Angela and McDermott, is a fairly straightforward motion that as our sheriff's department to establish and promote a year round voluntary firearm and ammunition turnover program. These are done in other departments, including the city of Seattle has one today. I think it's a little known, but in discussions with the sheriff's office and I want to thank Undersheriff Anderson for being here and a chief of staff, Ellenbrook. You can turn a firearm over, but out of the sheriff's office or some of them. But it's this legislation would make it more systematic, more widespread and more advertised. It's a motion that asked the department to look at the feasibility of developing a program, what it would cost, how it would be promoted and and really provide that easy opportunity. The vision here was to use the power of our King County Sheriff's Office with its geographic reach in our unincorporated communities, both rural and urban, as well as our ten or so contract cities where we provide service to see if we can make it easy. When somebody determines that, for whatever reason, they no longer wish to have a firearm in the house, or maybe they come into possession of one through inheritance or otherwise. Don't want to have it around. They're aware of the risks. You know, we have extreme risk protection orders, which we're studying and have stood up here. That's a fairly challenging program. This is in some ways a simpler way. Bring it when you can bring the gun and turn it in. There are some issues that need to be worked through that the sheriff's office would do in this legislation. In terms of the terms of a turnover, do you have to give your name or not? You know what? What would we do with the firearm with respect to obligations to to comply with federal law and and, of course , disposal and things like that. So this is not and we have an amendment here today that we've worked on with the sheriff's office. It's not directive. It it asked the sheriff's office to come up with a program and gives them the space and flexibility to do that. We don't put a timeline on it chair calls, but it would be my hope that the department could work and prepare to come back to us in the budget process to let us know how it could be stood up and and what it would cost in the amendment, which Andy will give us a briefing on. We have added a little more flexibility for them and also requested an additional item, and that would be to explore the feasibility of one or more early community buyback slash turn events. They did this a number of years ago here and had some 800 firearms returned. The city of Kirkland. Which includes councilmember mildew douches and his council districts, recently did one with their department, and almost 80 firearms were turned over in a day. So there is a, I think, a demonstrated need an interest in the county for this, and we've got that there. So there's a little set up for it. Thank you, General Wells.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Baskin with that. And the clerk will go ahead and give the briefing.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Andy McLeod. Council central staff at the staff report for this item begins on page 120 of your meeting packet. Proposed Motion 2020 20221 request would request that the executive assess the feasibility of establishing a year round voluntary firearm and ammunition return program within the King County Sheriff's Office. Voluntary firearm return programs allow individuals to relinquish their unwanted firearms, ammunition, explosives or other destructive devices to government entities. Usually, law enforcement programs can be one time limited events or ongoing services. Program policies vary widely across jurisdictions, but commonly include anonymous or no questions asked participation, financial or other incentives for IT. Participants. Partnerships or community oriented partnerships with community organizations. Delivery of unwanted firearms to a secure location or requested firearm pickup by program employees. And the destruction of all relinquished items. Jurisdictions in King County have both a history of one time firearm buyback events and ongoing firearm return programs. And these are summarized on pages 120 and 121 of the. With respect to King County, the King County Sheriff's Office, General Orders Manual includes policies and procedures that allow individuals to drop off unwanted weapons during normal business hours at the King County Sheriff's Office, locations equipped with secure evidence storage or another location upon individual's request and with the supervisors approval once relinquished, all firearms are taken for safe storage until they are held and can be condemned, can be destroyed at a facility in Spokane, which, according to the King County Sheriff's Office, generally occurs once or twice a year. Unwanted ammunition is also accepted, according to the sheriff's office, though it's not explicitly stated in the general order manual. King County Sheriff's Office does not provide currently any and any incentives, financial or otherwise, to county residents who relinquish unwanted firearms or ammunition to the sheriff's office. As I noted earlier, proposed motion 2020 20221 would require that the executive assess the feasibility of establishing a year round voluntary firearm and ammunition return program within the Sheriff's Office. The program, as assessed by the executive, should include a process by which any individual may relinquish any firearm or ammunition to any location at any time. Any sheriff's office location. A process by which an individual may request the sheriff's deputy or otherwise employee, other authorized employee to retrieve unwanted firearms or ammunition from a specified location. The destruction or disposable of all unwanted firearms and ammunition voluntarily relinquished, and the provision of monetary or other incentives to encourage participation in the program. And finally, the proposed motion further requests that the executive assess whether the voluntary firearm and ammunition return program could be developed and implemented in collaboration with jurisdictions throughout King County. And as Councilmember DEMBOSKY noted, there is an amendment, and we are joined by Undersheriff Anderson in Mark, L.A. Brooke, with the sheriff's office. I'm happy to brief the amendment now and four questions.
Speaker 0: First of all, let's hear if any of our council committee members has a question. I'm sure. Yes, Councilmember Dunn.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Andy. Thanks for the briefing there. The question I have is I understand that the motion would give the sheriff's office the option of a perhaps being a buyback program as opposed to a voluntary gun return program. I'm less worried about that because ultimately we would decide here what the buyback program would look like. The question I have is, what does it speak to about the lists that the sheriff office might make or keep when somebody comes and returns a gun or ammunition? As you probably remember, there was a voluntary bump stock return program and then later on a list was capped and then the public disclosure request was made of the personal information who had done that and became quite, quite the dust up. So I'm just curious what the legislation speaks to on that issue as it is right now.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council member Dunn, I believe as drafted, the legislation does not speak specifically to that list, but does give some deference to the sheriff's office to, I think, respond to your question.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then we do have King County Undersheriff Jesse Henderson. Would you like to make any comment on that?
Speaker 3: Yes, I would like to thank for being.
Speaker 0: Here, too.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Counsel, I appreciate the opportunity to come to you and talk about our support for this program as brought up. We've had policy in place for some time, and I like to emphasize that the overwhelming majority of guns that we bring into our custody under these surrender type programs have been court ordered surrenders. So we need to do a better tracking of the times that we voluntarily when community members voluntarily turn over firearms. And so we were going to we're going to build a system in place to be able to track that information as well. And I so totally support the need to get out there and market this better. So we so community members know that they have this option and they can go to our designated facilities or occasionally, if they're not able to provide that have that transportation to one of our facilities, that we could go out to the home and collect that firearm. And so we want to make sure that we're doing this in the safest way possible. And so we will build into our policy, our existing policy, some additional information that provides guidance to our deputies to be able to take these weapons into custody and put them into our evidence for him for disposal.
Speaker 0: And thank you very much. And we have Mark Labrecque, who is chief of staff for the King County Sheriff's Office. Mark, do you have a comment? Just a.
Speaker 3: Quick comment. Yes. Good morning. And just for the record, Mark Holbrook, chief of staff for the sheriff's office, comes over down. Just to answer your question, we actually had an opportunity to chat with Councilmember Dombrowski about this issue yesterday. And I think there obviously, the goal of a program like this is to be able to take in as many firearms as possible and concerns from folks who might be turning those in about the anonymity of that. So I think we absolutely recognize that, and I think we want to make sure that when we come back with the report on this, talk about what the options are in that space to ensure that anonymity. I think a question we had talked about, we have not settled it, but came up from one of our captains was, you know, is is there a possibility of wanting to at least understand if a weapon has been used in a past crime, not for the purpose of obviously following up with the person who turned it in, but just to recognize that that weapon has been identified and is, you know, our firearm has been identified and taken sort of out of service. So we're going to look at that and come back with how we can do that. But I think we're acutely aware of how do you manage names, a process, ensure anonymity, particularly with public records requests. Can I just just just finish real quick on that? Thanks, Madam Chair. Mike, I want to support this. I think voluntary gun return programs are good. We can argue about the effectiveness of gun buyback, because I ran President Bush's national effort to fight gun violence. And at that time, there really wasn't any efforts to gun buyback programs work per se. But we do need an option for people to voluntarily give away a gun. And there's a bunch of reasons why they might they might inherited a house. They might have somebody in their house has become emotionally unstable and they want to return a gun. There's a lot of good reasons why it should happen. The biggest deterrent to involuntary gun returns will be whether or not somebody's name is going to be put on a list somewhere. And so that's a concern I have. And, you know, court ordered returns are one universe individuals who are just kind of want to get the house out of their gun, out of grandmother's house or wherever, and just get get rid of it, because that's not their thing. That's kind of where I hope I hope you're sensitive to. And I if you are sensitive to that and I think I can support this today, but I just want to I want to put a face on it for for you folks, where you would see this program become less effective moving downstream.
Speaker 0: Any comment on that? Councilmember Domanski.
Speaker 1: Or.
Speaker 2: I'll defer to the expert, Undersheriff Anderson, and then I'll make a statement of legislative intent, as.
Speaker 0: We still do need to hear about the striking amendment. Go right ahead.
Speaker 3: I agree with the anonymity of turning in firearms. So we would have a system in place that you could show up at a worksite or call one of us to come out and obtain that weapon without needing to provide your name. Now, one of the scenarios we talked about, or I mentioned briefly during our discussion other day is that if you're a witness to a crime and you want to turn over a weapon that may have been involved in that crime, probably not going to be able to turn that over anonymously. We would have to work through some of those. But generally speaking, under the program, you could show up at one of our precincts and turn over that weapon and be able to walk away knowing that you're not your name's not going to end up on a list somewhere.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Chuckles. And I'll just say, from the legislative intent perspective and the language in the motion, it is consistent with Undersheriff Anderson's views and position to make this effective and preserve folks anonymity, if you will.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Let's go on now and hear from and our clerk to I mean, our policy analyst coordinator to about the striking amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. Actually, Councilmember Dombroski did a great summary of it. And what it would do is it will clarify that the request is to evaluate the assessment of the feasibility of a program and the original language. It said it specified which tribes that wants more time. The amendment would clarify that the request is to evaluate the feasibility of a voluntary safe firearm ammunition program. The original language specified what could potentially be included in the program in the amendment would say These are things that should be considered during the assessment, and so it changes it from what should be included in the program to what they could be conclude included in the assessment. And then, as Councilmember Taberski noted, two additional items as part of that evaluation were added, which is the gun buybacks and potential cost to administer the program. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Councilmember Jim Bass, would you like to move the first of all the legislation and then the striking amendment?
Speaker 2: Sure. Thank you. Chair. Coel's I move adoption or that we give a do pass recommendation that is to motion 2020 20221k and I move adoption of amendment one which has been described.
Speaker 0: Okay. The motion has been made for the proposed motion and also for this break amendment or amendment one. Are there any questions or comments on this striking amendment? Amendment one. Councilmember two I don't see any questions. Councilmember Dombroski, would you like to speak.
Speaker 2: Just briefly on Amendment one? It says and he described, but I want to thank the sheriff's office, including Undersheriff Anderson and Chief of Staff Ellenberg, for working with us to refine this and our staff for getting it into order. And just to be clear, it removes kind of the directive language which was in the original motion. Just by way of example shifts that to assess whether these elements should be included in the program. And that's consistent with the original intent of legislation to defer to our experts in developing this more enhanced and robust program by way of example. Undersheriff Anderson said, Well, you've got in here include in the program a requirement that we go to somebody, residents or placements to pick up a firearm. There's a lot of danger involved in that. We may or may not want to do that. Or if we do it, it may want to be under certain conditions. So the amendment here would say, should that kind of element be included? And then in addition, we added the tell us what you'll need to run it from a budget perspective and look at a couple of jump start, you know, look at some of these early buyback events to see if that could help. So that's what it does. And I encourage members support and I should let the sheriff's office say whether or not they support it on the record by themselves without me speaking for them.
Speaker 3: Yes, we support that.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you very much. And thank you both for being with us today. Any other questions or comments before we take a vote on Amendment one? Okay. All in favor of Amendment One, please say.
Speaker 2: I, i.
Speaker 0: I any opposed? Say me could. The amendment has been adopted and we now have before us propose motion 2022 0 to 21 as amended. Anything final that anybody would like to say?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Dombroski Well, I want to thank my colleagues and for their support, hopefully of the motion and thank the co-sponsors. You keep saying it's my legislation turtles, but it really is. Yeah, I've been here now in just over nine years. And one of the things that is inspiring, we often have our disagreements, even about things we generally agree about. But on this issue, gun safety and gun violence prevention, this council works extremely well together and is aligned to a great degree. And I really appreciate the co-sponsors, council members, ally and yourself corrals and Councilmember McDermott as evidence of that. And others, of course, are welcome. Councilmember Dunn, who has a great deal of expertize from his federal service on this, is correct that these programs aren't a panacea. The studies show that they can they can be helpful, but it takes a whole package of things. And so I don't view this Chair Caldwell's and colleagues as something that will solve this issue. But I think it can save lives. I think it can save lives by reducing the number of guns that are out there, because we know that, again, guns in homes dramatically increases the risk to folks living in those homes. And so if we give folks the opportunity when they're ready or interested to turn over a firearm, I think it follows logically that we reduce the risks associated with having the firearms in the home. That's the basic thrust of it, and I think it's part of a big package of work that we've done for years here, working together and will continue to do. And I really appreciate our sheriff's office engagement on it and willingness to help us develop a more robust program for the safety of our community, their core mission. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And thank you for introducing us. And of course, guns can be stolen that are out there, too. I'm okay with that. Will we please have the the card called the rule.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Perry. Chair.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry I missed you. I was looking. It's hard to see those hands raised sometimes. Councilmember Perry.
Speaker 4: It is hard to see them. Thank you. Chair COLWELL So I would just like to add my name as as a co-sponsor to this. I think that's a really great movement forward. And I and I agree also with Katzenjammer down on anonymity that it is critical, critical that we have the anonymity to allow guns to be removed from the hands of those who intend to do harm to themselves or others. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And with that will occur. Kirk, please call the roll.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your calls. Councilmember Bell Dickey, I. Councilmember Dombrowski.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Dunn. All right. Councilmember McDermott. Councilmember mcdermott now. Councilmember Perry, i. Councilmember up the grove. I. Councilmember Yvonne Reich. Power.
Speaker 4: I. Council members. Charlie. I charcoals.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Charcoal was about as eight eyes with Councilmember McDermott. Excused.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. With our vote, we have approved to propose motion 2020 20221 as amended. Hopefully, Councilman McDermott can touch in and be able to record have his vote recorded. He is a co-sponsor. And unless there is opposition, we will send this motion with the do pass recommendation expedited to the July 26 meeting. Okay. Thank you. That concludes the items on our agenda. I had said we would be through by noon. We've just missed that by about a minute. And any I don't believe any technical difficulties stop council members from voting.
|
Motion
|
A MOTION requesting the King County executive assess the feasibility of establishing a year-round voluntary safe firearm and ammunition return program within the King County sheriff's office.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_07062022_2022-0197
|
Speaker 0: Your call. See no further request. We will go on with our agenda and close public comment. The first item on our agenda is the motion sponsored by Council Member Zahoor ly requesting that the Executive develop an operational plan for sheltering the most vulnerable King County residents in the event of extreme cold heat or wildfire smoke. This is proposed motion 2020 20197 and Jennie Giambattista will brief us. We also have, I believe, from the executive branch, Mena Hashemi, Brandon McCluskey and Caroline Wayland. If there are any questions as. Go right ahead. Jennie unless Councilman Basile, I would like to say anything.
Speaker 7: First listen to the staff report first. Chair Coles.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Jennie.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Good morning. Chair Caldwell, the members of the committee, Jennie John Batiste, council staff, the staff report for this item begins on page seven of the packet. Given the very full agenda today, the Chair has asked me to provide highlights from the staff report. There are a few key points in the background section of the staff report. I'd like to highlight and provide some context for the discussion of the proposed motion. First, what's happening now during an extreme weather event? The Office of Emergency Management works with King County agencies and partners from other jurisdictions to identify and share information on available sheltering options. The Office of Emergency Management posts information during an event on the sheltering options, including links to other jurisdictions on the King County Emergency Blog. But OEM does not have an operational, extreme weather sheltering plan that details the shelters that are to be open, the hours staffing or other operational issues. Director McClusky from the Office of Emergency Management reports. The Department of Local Services has started working in the unincorporated area to find community based facilities that are suitable and willing to open in extreme weather events and to identify the operational needs for opening those facility. The background section of the staff report on page eight also includes some information on the extreme heat event in the region experienced last June. I've highlighted this event because, according to the National Weather Service, heat events are the most deadly weather related emergencies for King County. The heat dome was the deadliest climate related event in the region's history, with 32 with 33 deaths, an average age of 75.6. Based on data from public health, 91% of the fatalities occurred in the persons resident. June 28th of that heat dome also set a record for the highest number of EMS related calls in the history of VMs. There are more details on the EMS responses that can be found in a PowerPoint on page 21 of the packet that was prepared by EMS for a countywide summer hazard seminar hosted by the Office of Emergency Management. I've also included a presentation in the packet from that same seminar from the National Weather Service on page 42 of the packet, which notes some of the challenges that Seattle region faces with dealing with extreme heat events. The Seattle region has the lowest rates of any metropolitan region for air conditioning. Additionally, homes are built to keep the heat in in the northwest with added insulation and many have south facing exposures. Additionally, the National Weather Service noted that many community facilities don't have air conditioning in the heat dome event. The temperatures peaked late at night, which meant indoor temperatures stayed hot. The National Weather Service noted that these indoor evening air temperatures need to be taken into consideration when planning for the operating hours and cooling shelters. I'd like to now turn to the discussion of the motion, and that discussion is on page 12 of the packet. The motion requests the executive to develop an operational plan by February 28th, 2023 for sheltering the most vulnerable residents during extreme cold heat and wildfire smoke events. The motion defines the most vulnerable residents as including, but not limited to, unhoused people, low income people who live in housing without adequate protection from extreme weather and theater. Senior citizens or those with disabilities without adequate protection from extreme weather. The motion requests the executive coordinate with King County agencies and work groups, and the King County Homeless Regional Homeless Authority to develop the operational plan. The motion calls for the executive to strive to begin offering expanded extreme weather sheltering no later than June of 2023. The cost, information and the staffing requirements for such a sheltering plan are requested as part of the transmitted operational plan. I'd like to highlight some of the key actions requested in the motion. First is to conduct community outreach in low income communities and unhoused communities and unincorporated King County to gather information on the community's preferences for the location and features that result in the highest utilization of shelters during extreme cold heat and wildfire smoke events. The outreach efforts should also seek to identify other community needs in responding to extreme weather events. The next action requested is based on the information gathered from the low income communities. Provide a listing and map of King County owned or operating office operated facilities in King County that are recommended to serve as extreme weather shelters. Another major action requested is to develop a plan to offer hotel vouchers during extreme heat events, to offer temperature controlled accommodations to those living in unincorporated King County who are the most vulnerable to the effects of heat, including the elderly, families with infants and those with underlying medical conditions and opportunities to stay cool. Additionally, there are two requests to coordinate with the Department of the State Department of Social and Health Services to identify any long term care assistance facilities or family care homes in King County that do not have air conditioning. This is intended so that in the event of an extreme heat event, outreach can be done to these facilities. Additionally, there is a request to maintain a website with updated real time information during extreme weather events, which includes a listing of all available shelters. Where to Go to get help and public health tips for staying safe during extreme weather events and how to volunteer or donate resources to organizations providing support during extreme weather events. Those are the components of the motion. There are a few issues identified in the staff report on page 13. First are the challenges with extreme weather shelters. These include the staffing, particularly for overnight shifts. Community partners have also expressed concerns over the operating costs and security in addition to staffing, and that's been reported by DLS and some of their current work. Additionally, some shelters reach capacity while others get few occupants. However, I would note that we don't really have data now on shelter capacity to what extent are being utilized. Not all community facilities in the region have air conditioning. And then lastly, the COVID 19 pandemic continues to complicate things. The staff report also notes that council staff have requested additional information to better understand the extent to which the proposed activities could be achieved using existing resources. They also want to note that on page 77 of the packet, you will find the changes suggested by executive staff that were provided on Friday afternoon. Staff analysis of these changes is ongoing. Madam Chair, that concludes my staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions or go into more detail on some of the topics that I did go over quite quickly. We also, as you indicated, have executive staff in the meeting to answer any questions as well. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jenny, for the excellent report. Did you mean to say page 77 of the report?
Speaker 5: That I think yes, that includes page 77 of the packet is where you will find the changes that were suggested by the executive stack.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you very much. Are there any questions about Jenny at this point?
Speaker 7: I can get my remarks if you're okay with that.
Speaker 0: That would be fine. Go right ahead. Thank you, Councilmember.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Chair Caldwell's. Thank you, Jenny, for that great report. I'll start off by saying that earlier this year, I read an alarming story in The New York Times about a deadly heatwave in India. Imagine week after week, unrelenting temperatures between 110 and 125 degrees. No AC, no relief. Just suffocating, scorching heat. Dozens of people died and continue to die. It's a devastating human made disaster and people are suffering because of it. Then I thought about our fates up here in the mild, mild Pacific Northwest. Last year, we saw three of the five hottest days in King County history happen not only in the same year, but in the same week. As Jenny reported, we also saw dozens of heat related deaths. On a personal note, I didn't have AC in my home. My home got up to 110 degrees and I felt like I was choking. Then I thought about all the people in King County who are living in dense apartment complexes, senior facilities, encampments with no HD, who are all vulnerable to heat waves and who face greater and greater environmental threats every year. I read in Cross that Washington historically sees only four days per year the average 90 degrees or above. But by mid-century, in our lifetimes, without emissions intervention, this number will stretch to 17 days and it'll only go up from that. Extreme weather is going to affect every aspect of our daily lives. Extreme heat, extreme cold, wildfire smoke. And when you combine that with our housing crisis, the fact that we have the lowest number of housing units per capita of any state in the country, we are in a particularly unique and dangerous situation here in Washington state. So as Jenny described, my motion asks the executive to develop an operational plan for sheltering the most vulnerable in our region. The bread and butter of the motion is creating a regional network of indoor facilities that are constantly developing and that we're building on that map of indoor facilities. I'd like to see three categories. Category A Here are the buildings that King County currently owns and is already using for extreme weather shelter. Category B Here are the buildings King County owns and does not currently use for extreme weather shelter, but that we potentially could with proper staffing and upgrades. And here are the costs and the plan for those staffing and those upgrades. Finally, Category C, here are the buildings that King County doesn't own that are maybe owned by other government jurisdictions or the private sector. Here is our engagement plan for working with those entities that own those buildings with those third parties. Think of a public school, for example. And here are the costs in the plan for staffing up and creating the upgrades needed to create extreme weather shelter out of those buildings. The motion also asks the executive to do a few other things that Jenny already described, like conducting outreach in unincorporated King County. You may have read recently in the Seattle Times, but we do not face heat waves in an equitable way. There are areas that face more higher impacts of those heat waves than others. I've noticed that Skyway is one of the areas that faces one of the highest impacts of heat waves waves in King County. So South King County and many other places. So I'll end by saying nobody needs to die of heat waves. Nobody needs to die of wildfire smoke inhalation. Nobody needs to freeze to death. These are all preventable deaths and ones that we can help prevent by making sure that we are as prepared as possible and using all of the resources that currently exist at our disposal. I urge your support and I'm thankful for everybody who worked on this motion, including Jenny, Jake, Tracy, Rosa, my, my, my staff, my staff, team member, and also the executive branch who have been very helpful and collaborative during this process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmembers. I really appreciate the thoroughness and as well as of the thought that you put into this, really identifying a major issue which appears to be coming exacerbated with our climate issues. I have a couple of questions. First, I'd like to say I'm very pleased that you included language pertaining to long term care facilities and collecting the data on which ones are how many but which ones really do not have air conditioning. A family friend of mine who was living in a long term care facility with the brain traumatic brain injury and who died two years later, had no air conditioning. There were no windows that could open in the facility. And this was just a couple of years ago when she died. And so fans were used and it was totally inadequate and what they needed. What they need is to have an H VAC system so that they can have the air conditioning. And it was really horrible. So I very much appreciate that you included that. My question is, I as I understand the executive came out with a plan a couple of weeks ago, three weeks ago or so. How does your legislation differ from what's already in place?
Speaker 7: The thing that I haven't seen is what I described before, which is that a map, a regional network of indoor facilities and the plan to staff up and upgrade buildings that either we don't own or that we don't currently use as extreme weather shelter. I haven't seen that and I haven't seen that accounted for. And so that's probably the thing that I would say is the most different. And then Jenny can maybe chime in as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. Councilmembers. Hello. Jenny, would you like to add anything on that?
Speaker 5: Sure. Thank you for the question, Councilmember Colwell. I think you're referring to the executives at press and in recent weeks about the plan to develop an extreme heat mitigation strategy. And I did ask the executive how that extreme heat mitigation strategy, how that complements or works, would work with this proposed motion. And on page 12 of the packet, you will see the executives response that the extreme heat mitigation strategy will not specifically address the sheltering needs, but the sheltering plan that's proposed in this motion could be a complement to the extreme heat mitigation strategy and about as well as they note, while the strategy will identify a new and that's the extreme heat mitigation strategy, while the strategy will identify a new or enhanced short term actions that we could be taking to support response. The bigger focus of the executive's heat mitigation strategy is examining the longer term built environment changes we should be taking to mitigate heat risks.
Speaker 0: Kate. Thank you, Jenny. And I do want to get to our executive staff, but I see that Councilmember Bell Duke, she has a question.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Chair Colwell. I want to first also express my appreciation for this proposal. It was a terrible, terrible outcome and terrible time during the heat wave of last summer. And so I really do appreciate this forward thinking. How can we make things better in the future kind of proposal? The question I have is. As with most emergency responses, there's a heavy component of inter jurisdictional partnerships that happens when we respond to weather events, earthquakes, any kind of major emergency. And I was listening carefully, and I don't think I heard an element of this proposal that would survey the available partnership shelters, spaces or ways in which we could partner. I think back to that very long term power outage we had some years ago, and in the cities here on the east side, we supported each other different . You know, there were maybe shelters in some parts of Bellevue that served a lot of Redmond and vice versa. So I would wonder if that's possible to include an element of that sort of very critical partnership potential in this proposal.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Bell, did she there there is a specific provision to call an action requirement or request, I should say. It's a motion to coordinate with city, state and federal agencies to identify any public or private facilities in King County that could serve as shelters in the event of extreme cold heat and wildfire smoke events. That's right.
Speaker 2: That's very helpful. Thank you. The only thing I guess I would add to that is that the focus on facilities is understandable and really important. We need places for people to go. That that clearly is why some people, you know, have preventable deaths during these kinds of events because they had nowhere safe to go. But I think that there's there's probably operational elements, too, like perhaps depending on the type of weather event and how it's hitting people, we might identify different shelter. There might be different configurations of response and different different kinds of partnerships. So just like let's not overlook the operational aspects as well. I think this is a very thoughtful proposal. I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Bell, did she chair call us? Yes.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: The one councilmember who's with me here. Council member Bill Perry.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Chair Colwell. So I, I also I share the appreciation for this proposal. And I'm aware in our last heat dome, there were 33 deaths. One of those deaths was in district with it was in my district, district three. And the senior citizen community, senior resident community in our district was very strongly impacted. We had that same question about hours of operation for shelter spaces, cooling spaces. It wasn't available on the weekends, it wasn't available after hours. And so I'm wondering, I'm glad to see a look at the staffing and facilities and partnerships with nonprofits, churches, temples, mosques, other municipalities to address this. I know at that time, the fire, the Eastside Fire and Rescue wanted to make sure we had an sort of on the ground network knowing where our folks in our different communities were most at risk. I would love to see a breakout by district, as you mentioned, council members ally. There are certain districts that are more impacted, certain areas that are more impacted. And I'd like to see a breakout of the actual the areas where the actual deaths occurred and the age demographic as well as the ethnic background . I think it's really important to to look at the data and to make sure that we are responding to the areas that are most impacted. I'm also wondering if beyond the shelter, there are many people that are not mobile that are at risk. And so I'm wondering if there are cooling units that would be made available. One of the things that was brought up by you said fire and rescue is just are our senior citizens that were most fragile, not having a cooling unit in their home, a small cooling unit or whatever, whatever might be available. I'm wondering if that's something that we're looking into. And I'm also aware that when western and Eastern hospitals closed, there were different locations set up around our neighborhood, three different locations set up around our neighborhood for folks that were living with developmental disabilities, Down syndrome and and others in these group homes. And it was really they had no no cooling opportunities and it was really dangerous. And that was something that Eastside Fire and Rescue also brought up as just needing equipment for these vulnerable spaces and places. So I guess analyst Jenny Giambattista, I am wondering if you can share a little bit more about the possibility of equipment, not just a movement to a location, but this multipronged approach that might include equipment and if that's spoken to already.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilmember Perry, for the question. The motion as it's drafted now does not specifically address a requirement for equipment, but I would note that as part of the requirement to do outreach to. Gauge the community's needs and preferences for shelter. There is also a requirement to address other needs as well, and certainly equipment could could be there. I would also note you also ask for information on the location of this of the deaths that occurred. Council staff have been working with public health. Where there is public health does have a concern about releasing the data and has noted that the heat related deaths occurred throughout the county and that any apparent pattern or distribution was not able to be identified during what they consider an extremely small number of deaths. That said, council staff will continue to work with public health to see if we can find a way to provide a spatial mapping of those deaths to provide the information that you're looking for.
Speaker 4: Council Member I would appreciate that. Thank you very much. And I think that that data helps to drive our actions and so be the more specific we can be, of course, without sharing private information that would otherwise be inappropriate. I think really recognizing where we have the greatest impact and see the greatest impact throughout King County. Having that data helps us make better decisions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Perry. Are there any other questions of councilmembers, ally or Jenny? Okay. I would then like to have some comment from the executive branch, I'm thinking Brenton McClusky, director of Office of Emergency Management. But we also have Mena Hashemi, Director of Council Relations, and Caroline Whalen, Director of Department of Executive Services, with us.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Chair. Call Wells.
Speaker 4: I believe that.
Speaker 1: If. If you'd like, I would offer.
Speaker 0: Comments from the executive. That would be fine. And chaperon with us.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much for having me.
Speaker 0: The executive.
Speaker 1: Supports a regional approach to extreme weather, sheltering.
Speaker 5: And heating and cooling centers and county agencies.
Speaker 1: Have been coordinating internally and with cities and now with the Regional Homeless Authority.
Speaker 0: To reduce.
Speaker 1: The amount of.
Speaker 5: Heroics required in our.
Speaker 1: Response to extreme weather. Since discussions with sponsor council members Charlie, which began earlier this year, we've increased.
Speaker 5: These efforts with an.
Speaker 1: Eye on the potential need for warm weather response this summer. The introduction of.
Speaker 5: This proposed motion has had a very positive result.
Speaker 1: By elevating both our internal and external coordination. There is much in this legislation to.
Speaker 5: Which we agree, and we look forward to producing a quality product.
Speaker 1: In response to your future adoption of this motion, or by completing the.
Speaker 5: Work we have already initiated.
Speaker 1: Since the Motion's introduction. We've collected executive branch, and I would note that there.
Speaker 5: Are at least six.
Speaker 1: Executive branch.
Speaker 2: Departments involved in this.
Speaker 1: As well.
Speaker 5: As information from.
Speaker 2: Our city emergency partners.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 1: Gather their input. And we have.
Speaker 2: Compiled that in the form of amendments that.
Speaker 1: Are in your packet today.
Speaker 2: And we provided those late last week on Friday.
Speaker 5: To the sponsor and his office. Our chief concern is the.
Speaker 2: Deadline by which an.
Speaker 1: Actionable operational.
Speaker 2: Plan can be completed. We look forward to further discussions with the sponsor on the amendments.
Speaker 5: That we recommend. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Director Whalen. Council members are right. You have any response?
Speaker 7: I want to thank OEM and everyone in the executive branch. They have been extremely responsive and collaborative on this motion. They've been sharing their expertize. I want to say that they have already been doing a lot of the stuff that's in the motion. They have comprehensive responses. I'm hoping that the recommendations we make through this motion are additive of their efforts, and I'm definitely willing to look at their amendments and make changes, especially on the deadline. You know, you're the ones who are doing the work. And so I will I will be fully deferential on the deadline piece to make sure that we do this right and not just do this. You know, I do think we need to do it fast, but we also need to do it right. So I'll agree with you there and looking forward to working with you on all of the other amendments as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And is there anybody else either Mina Hashimi or or Brendan McCluskey, who would like to make any comments?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Circle Wells. I don't have much to add to Director Whalen's comments, but will echo the executive's support for a regional approach to addressing extreme weather events. We appreciate the sponsors, intent and attention to this incredibly important issue and thank them. As Caroline shared, we've begun conversations with several executive branch departments regarding implementation and have shared some of this feedback with the sponsor and look forward to collaborating with him and with council to implement the motion if passed by council. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Director Hashemi. And what about Director Brandon McCluskey? Any comments?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also don't have anything else to add other than to echo what both.
Speaker 3: Caroline and Mina have have stated already. And we're looking forward to working with the sponsor on this the council, the cities and other.
Speaker 7: Departments of King County on creating a plan that.
Speaker 3: Works.
Speaker 7: And does the right thing.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the three of you being here and council members. It appears that the best course of action now would be to hold this until our July 20th meeting, at which we can take up a striking amendment, possibly, or light amendments. And we'll look forward to working with you on that. Does that meet with your satisfaction?
Speaker 7: Yes, they can check.
Speaker 0: Okay, terrific. Well, that closes our discussion and hearing a proposed motion. 2020 20197. We will now turn to item number six on our agenda, something we all look forward to with a briefing by Dwight Lively, director of the Office of Performance Strategy and Budget, and basically is our Budget Director for the county.
|
Motion
|
A MOTION requesting that the executive develop a regional operational plan for extreme weather centers and disaster sheltering, with a special focus on the most-vulnerable King County residents.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_06152022_2022-0180
|
Speaker 0: So unless certainly burning questions, I'd like to move on now and we will look forward to having another presentation on the bond and at a later date. Okay. With that, we will now move to agenda item number seven. The staff report begins on page 38, and this is a proposed ordinance on a King County charter change to move elections for certain county offices from odd number two, even number years. We did have a briefing on this already at our June 1st meeting, and we have Sherri Su from our central staff to provide the second briefing , an abbreviated briefing. And I was glad to see you with us today, Sherri. We also have from the county Department of Elections Julie Wise and Kendall Hudson, who were with us at our last briefing. And they will be available to answer questions as well with that. Go right ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Chair Colwell and good morning, council members. Sherri, through a council staff and the materials begin on page 38 of your packet proposed ordinance 2020 20180 would place on the November 2022 ballot a charter amendment proposal to move elections for county executive, county assessor, county elections director and county council members from odd to even years. This proposed ordinance was briefed in committee on June 1st, so in the interest of time, I will skip the background and just focus on those areas where there were questions in the previous meeting and present the new information. I'm also happy to answer any questions on the staff report. I'll just begin with a quick reminder of the proposed changes, and this is on page 42 and table two. For the county executive and council members from districts one, three, five, seven and nine. These are most recently elected in 2021 for a four year term, ending 2025 under the proposed charter amendment. The next term would change to a three year term, and after that terms would be four years for the county assessor, elections director and council members from districts two, four, six and eight. These are most recently elected in 2019 for a four year term ending 2023 under the proposed charter amendment. The next term would be a three year term, and after that terms would again be four years. Moving on to the cost considerations on page 43. From an operational perspective, election staff indicate that moving county officer elections from odd to even years would not directly result in operational changes or cost to the department. And moving on now to the the discussion of the allocation of election costs among the county, state and local jurisdictions at a high level elections department administers elections and then divides up that cost proportionally to the state, the county and local jurisdictions that appear on a given ballot. We looked at the potential fiscal impact if past county officer elections had been held in even years instead of odd years. This is shown in table four on page 45. The summary of this whole table is that since 29, since 2009, there are three instances where the county cost would have decreased. Two instances where the county cost would have increased, and in most cases there would be no impact. We did go through this in detail at the last briefing, so I'll skip that. But if there are any questions, I'm happy to walk through it again. I'm jumping now to the potential policy considerations on page 46. The first one listed here is voter turnout. The chart on page 46 summarizes voter turnout for general elections in the county over the last 20 years. Since 2010, the county's average voter turnout rate is 77% and even years and 47% in odd years. If past trends hold moving county officer elections from odd to even. Errors will likely result in higher voter turnout for these elections. Whether council wants to increase voter turnout for the election of these county officers is a policy decision for the council. There was a question in the previous briefing about how this change might impact turnout for local jurisdictions in odd years based on turnout in other counties. Data does not suggest that holding county officer elections in even years instead of odd years would impact on year turnout. On page 48, Table five compares the voter turnout in the seven home rural charter counties during 2021. So three of these counties elected county officers that year. Four of these counties did not elect county officers that year. And based on this data, there is no clear trend distinguishing voter turnout between these two groups. The second path exaggeration is the number of races on the ballot. Moving these county officer elections to even years would increase the number of races on even your ballots and reduce the number on odd year ballots. In terms of the specific number of races that would be moved, the number of ballot items could increase or decrease by two or three. In the previous briefing, there was a request for some sample ballots, and election staff have put together some sample ballots that show possibilities of what past ballots would have looked like with county officer elections held in even years instead of odd years. So there are four years of ballots 2018, 20, 19, 2020 and 2021. Just to orient you to those materials for each year there. There are original and revised ballots, and there are both primary and general elections. These sample ballots assume that the 2019 county officer elections were instead held the year before in 2018, and they assume that the 2021 county officer elections were instead held in 2020. There are multiple versions of each ballot and just to show different examples and the sample ballots also show the order of ballot races. There is also a question about what response rates for county officer races might look like in even years. So the staff report now includes Pierce County's response rate during a recent even year elections. This is on page 49. Pierce County is the home rule Charter County and Neighbor County that holds county officer elections in even years. If King County moved county officer elections to even years, then Pierce and King County would have similar ballot sequences. So Pierce County offers one example of how response rates are at the top of the ballot and may compare with response rates for a county officer. Elections in 2020. The first county item was a referendum with a response rate of 82%. The turnout for a county officer positions was 82% for county executive, 82% for a county assessor, and 85, 80, 81 and 76% for a county council position in 2018, which is a non-presidential election year. The first county wide item was an initiative with a turnout of 66%, and turnout for county council positions was 67, 60 and 77%. The third party consideration listed on the staff report is alignment with federal and state elections. Moving county officer elections to even years would align the election schedule of these county officers with federal and state elections. And whether council desires to do this is a policy decision for the Council just to close timing. This is our second briefing in this committee to place this potential charter amendment on the November ballot. The last regular council meeting to adopt as a non-emergency would be July 19th. I'm happy to take your questions at this time. And we. We have election staff joining us as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I really appreciate the very thorough presentation. And I'm wondering if there are any questions of our staff here or of Julie Wise, Director, Wise of Department of Elections or Chief of Staff? Hudson from the Department of Elections.
Speaker 3: But I have a quick question.
Speaker 0: Go right ahead. Councilmember Dan.
Speaker 3: Quick. So the way the election sequence is lined up, will you, the county executive, be up on presidential years or in the mid term you.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the question. Let me just double check that really quick. The county executive, is there current and term ends in 2025? The next term under the proposed election cycle, under the proposed amendment that would end in 2028 and would be aligned with the presidential election.
Speaker 3: Actually, the county executive would be aligned with the presidential election and the four council seats with a presidential election, and then the odd year boundaries would be midterms. So. Right.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I actually would like to turn to Councilmember Bell duty at this point. And we again, we still have our elections officials with us. But I'd like to give Councilmember Bell, did she, the lead sponsor, an opportunity to speak on this?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Chair Carl Wells. I'd be happy to make a motion since this is our second briefing. If you think that is timely.
Speaker 0: That's fine.
Speaker 2: I would move that. We move proposed ordinance 2020 20810 to the full council with a DE Pass recommendation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So that motion has been made. And would you like to speak to at this time, or do you have any questions of election staff?
Speaker 2: I'd be happy to speak to it. I'll try to make it really brief. I'm encouraging your support today to move this item forward so that we can stick to the timelines, to put this on the ballot and ask the voters to have their say about whether they want to move our county elected officials to even year elections . Colleagues, you know, we have been a leader in making elections accurate, fair and accessible to as many voters as possible. We are rightly proud here of our county's leadership on making voting accessible to all with successful vote by mail elections for many years before it became statewide, widely available ballot boxes which we funded in communities throughout King County so people can drop off their ballots easily. We've funded initiatives to educate and involve many more new voters, and we led the way on prepaid postage for ballots, which, again, all of these initiatives were supported by this council and have expanded access to voting. We understand that access to voting is critically important. Our government is the most representative and is to say the most democratic. When the people elected to represent the voters are sent by as many of the people as we represent as possible. And as we've heard, the.
Speaker 1: Data shows that voter turnout during even.
Speaker 2: Year elections is dramatically higher than outyear elections, meaning many more voters will have a voice in who represents them in these key offices that we that we occupy.
Speaker 1: You heard some of the numbers.
Speaker 2: I won't repeat them, but I will say that by moving to even year elections, I just want to stress what we heard from some of this really compelling testimony earlier today. Not just a higher number of voters would participate, but an electorate that is far more representative of our public at large, including more people of color, more and younger voters, more renters, more people of lower income and with less wealth. The flip side of that is currently these positions are elected very disproportionately by, you know, a very.
Speaker 1: Limited demographic that is.
Speaker 2: Dominated by wealthy, older voters. Those voters get to have a say, but everybody should have a say. We should have all of our voters, as many of them as possible, engaged in selecting their representatives. I think I'll just close by saying we've been briefed, we've had an opportunity to have questions answered. There's still more time today and a final council if there are further questions. But let's send this to the voters this year so that they can have their say. And if they agree that this is a very important and simple fix that will really expand access to voting, then we can be moving towards those years when it will actually be implemented. Because as you heard, the proposal is we get our first even year elections like three years out from next year. So let's get this going. I urge your support. Thank you, Chairman Wilson.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Member Baldacci. At this point, we still have our election officials with us. We are short on time. But I would like to hear if any of our council members have further questions or comments.
Speaker 3: At the Grove.
Speaker 0: Councilmember at the Grove.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. And this was probably explained, and I just just missed it. But could staff explain one more time how we transition to that odd year? What does it mean? This is a selfish question, perhaps as someone who's in office. The next time, for example, I'm up on the ballot. Using just me as an example is an odd numbered year. I assume nothing changes about the current term in District five. Is the next person elected for three years or for five years? Is it three? Three? Okay.
Speaker 1: Sir, I'm I'm happy to clarify that. So nothing changes with the current term and then the next term would be three years instead of four. And that would move every move to the even schedule.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Councilmember Campbell.
Speaker 4: Thanks. The corollary to that is for seats that are up in 2023. Are they going to be three year terms?
Speaker 1: Yes. So this change would be happening to all the positions. Some of those would happen in 2023. Some would happen in 2025, depending on when that position is up. The next term would be three for all of these, and then after that, they would all be four years again.
Speaker 4: Got you. And in the last briefing we had, which was the first briefing, I had asked about the impact of the costs to run these campaigns. Was staff able to make any estimates because of the the need to talk to more voters, which is a good thing, what the cost might be to run for county executive elections director, assessor County Council.
Speaker 1: We did not look into the question of campaign costs. That would be more of a political question. I think.
Speaker 3: We.
Speaker 0: Would, director wise, like to comment on that. I don't know if she or others would know that in terms of projection in the future. Go right ahead. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2: Good morning. Councilmembers. I think Councilmember Dombroski for the question. I, too, would pretend to know the answer to that question. I know that in talking about this initiative.
Speaker 1: That there's been conversations around the impacts to running campaigns.
Speaker 2: But I think that's a little bit outside of my purview, to be honest with you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I think.
Speaker 3: Know.
Speaker 4: Just I this is my biggest. I really love the increased turnout and the greater diversity of the electorate. It's more representative of the county, so more people are participating. But having done some work in this space, the the ability to run with I'm looking at a colleague here I think in the race are indeed three. It may have cost over $350,000 on one side or another. And it's just over $650,000 spent just by the campaigns alone, independent expenditures. And I don't think that's purely political. I think that's the policy there, particularly when we look at public financing, which is county used to have. And so who gets to reasonably be on the ballot, which is one of the goals of this, to have a more have a representative council. So often politics, sadly, in America is driven by money. And when we are and I think elections and even yours, it's fair to say, because where we would be or people running would be talking to more voters, it would cost more. And that can be a barrier. So I'm I've been interested in kind of a package of explaining a package of reforms, democracy reforms, including public financing, the interest in ranked choice voting shift to even year elections would be part of that. I, i, I really appreciate where this proposal is coming from and the goal that it would have, which is an important one of having more people participate. But I do think there are collateral issues that are that arise, the big one being the dollars. And I mean what I county executives raised cost $3 million $4 million that could in a presidential year when you're trying to buy TV, that's a real issue that I think we haven't talked about and I have asked and and dialog on. But that's a concern for me.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember DEMBOSKY. And I could look at it from another perspective that there's only so much money out there, and it may be that it would not cause more, given that there are a lot more, there would be a lot more campaigns going on, but we don't know. That, of course, could come out during the campaign for on this ballot measure very quickly. Council Member Perry. And then I'd like to turn to a councilmember done. And then Councilmember Bell, did she do close?
Speaker 1: Thank you. I really love competition and want to be the best district. I believe steel sharpens steel. And I believe competing for space in imaginative, innovative and interesting ways to have a vote is is what we're based on. And if that results in more people participating, then that to me is a win all the way around. And it's a huge and important and very positive challenge to each of us.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Dunn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the bill being brought up for consideration. I just want to let folks, I really strongly oppose this particular piece of legislation. Just because there's a higher percentage of people filling in the oval, does it mean that there's a more informed electorate? When you buried King County Council and Council executive races, the second largest government, the state of Washington, underneath the presidential race, the United States Senate race, ten congressional races, seven statewide races and others. What you do is you lose sight of the local issues that impact people the most instead of the federal issues. And the passion for the federal elections. Gobble up all the time. People need to be talking about Seattle. What is the highest homeless population per capita of any city in the United States, or the dramatic, historic rise in murders and shootings in and around King County and transportation and traffic and land use problems? That's not the kind of thing they are focused on. When presidents are running and US senators are running and congresspeople and governors are, these issues will be buried and seldom talked about unless federal candidates decide to talk about it. And so just because more bubbles are being filled in doesn't mean you have a more educated electorate on local issues. The odd year elections historically have always given us a chance to focus on local issues, given a chance for the editorial boards to focus on local issues, to talk about the things that matter, most of them very well. And so varying these in under these major federal races is a mistake. Also, those of you I ran for attorney general back in 2012 against our good friend Bob Ferguson. And I will tell you, the media is incredibly expensive when you've got a presidential race buying up all the time, even a Senate race buying up all the time, and congressional races, seven statewide risks, including the governor and the attorney general. And so there will be in the literally the price of getting ads out is far more expensive because there are less time slots available for that. And so what this will mean is it is an incumbent protection policy for incumbent members of the King County Council and an incumbent county executive. Nobody who has limited name ideas that get known in any significant way. If if we have a situation where these races are buried underneath the federal races. And so I would strongly encourage people to understand the cost factor. It will be impossible for some local town council members to go after a well-known community councilmember or county executive. So that's a big it's an incumbent protection plan. It's an education plan on local issues. And there are a lot of other reasons why this is bad. I guess I would say if it isn't broken, don't fix it. You might say, well, we get more of increased participation. Remember, we spent a lot of money the taxpayers have on putting ballot boxes all throughout the community. But you have a voter education program printing a ballot. And just about every language we can, we now pay for the ballots sent. We even now pay for the return postage. It's not fair to put those individuals who are trying to study local issues at a disadvantage themselves, because all these issues are now buried under the presidential presence. So I think it's a significant mistake in this county to go in the direction of having your elections buried under these big federal issues. I also think you're going to dramatically hurt the media, the media around here as a small business, those local publications, those local papers, those local TV and radio stations, the bigger newspapers, they all receive substantial revenue in those off years. For candidates running for office by county council, race alone is over $800,000. You know, a lot of that went to local media. They want they want the street drought those off years that I also think is insensitive to that small business said I'm going to oppose this. I hope we can do something different. I appreciate the intense spirit which you brought up, but I think it's a mistake to totally hide local issues and protect incumbents.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilman. Every time I would like to turn this over to Councilmember Bell, do try to close, but I would like to say one thing. Just make sure everybody knows. Not every voter at all has to follow ten congressional races, either it would be one and so forth. And so anyway. And I think that the county races would be above the judicial races, at least we heard that last week. Jenny is shaking her head. Yes. With that. Councilmember Bell, do try to close.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Chair Caldwell's I will say that since.
Speaker 2: Since surfacing this proposal, the the case for doing it has been extraordinarily compelling. It's based on data, it's based on research. It's based on what we know about what. Works to get more voters participating in selecting their elected representatives. The opposing arguments have been almost entirely based on partizanship, based on the idea that one side or the other would be disadvantaged by more people voting. And I have to say, if more people voting is bad for your for your candidacy, then, you know, the voters should have a say. The voters the voters should get to pick who they want to represent them. And suppression is never the right approach to winning to winning an election. The other group of opposition arguments have come from campaign insiders, people who are concerned about what does this mean for me running a campaign or people who in other ways make their money or or get their offices out of running campaigns? Campaigns will adjust. We will figure it out. We will figure out how to get our message out to voters. I sit here as somebody who was elected having been outspent. When you count independent expenditures and direct candidate funding by almost 3 to 1, and I was able to win because I did what campaigns do. I adjusted. I campaigned as will others with a lot of other with a lot of volunteers, with phone calling, with the old fashioned methods. And we still were able, with the money that we raised, to do a fair amount of media. I am not concerned that campaigns will not get their votes out when I get their messages out. I'm sorry, and I'll say what I said before. I think that we overestimate what most voters do in an odd number of years in order to learn about the issues. I think people read their newspapers, look at their voters guides. They might collect some of those mailers that pile up on the kitchen table. And when the time comes, they pull out whatever their favorite information sources are. And they look at the ballot and they ask friends and family and they fill in the ballots and they fill in the boxes, the little the little bubbles, as you said. And they do it based on the information that is available to them from their their preferred sources of information. And people will still do that in even numbered years. I don't think you will see a tremendous drop off in the level of education or knowledge of the voters from odd years to even years. So. I haven't heard any compelling arguments not to do this. I don't know why we didn't do it before. And I just want to end by saying we are by far not going to be like on the cutting edge as counties go. Most counties in Washington state.
Speaker 1: Elect their elect their.
Speaker 2: County council members, executives and other county officers in even years. Pierce County does it to the south and they're just fine and we're just fine. And so I really encourage us to move this forward to the council and then at council to move it forward to the voters to make the appointments. Thank you, colleagues.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Council member Dale, did she with the clerk? Please call the roll.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Chair Powell's Council Member Bell Duty II. Council Member DEMBOSKY, I. Council Member Dunn.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Council Member.
Speaker 2: McDermott.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Perry, i. Council member of the grove.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Councilmember upon Jack Bauer. Council members only.
Speaker 3: I. No.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Charcoals. I The boat is seven eyes, two nose. Those being council members. Dunn and Von Right Bower.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And with our vote, we have approved proposed ordinance 2022 zero one's eight zero. And we will send this ordinance with the due pass recommendation for the consent agenda. No, we cannot send it to the consent agenda to the regular agenda for the June 28th Council meeting. Our next item is proposed motion 2020 20174 approving the executive's reappointment of Anita Khandelwal as county public defender in the staff report begins on page 23, Jenny Champion G. Battista will be providing a very short, abbreviated report because this is the second time that she will be doing so.
|
Ordinance
|
AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to the King County Charter to move elections for certain county offices from odd-numbered to even-numbered years; amending Sections 640, 647 and 650.20 of the King County Charter and repealing Sections 650.40.15, 650.40.25 and 660 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection at the November 8, 2022, general election.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_06012022_2022-0133
|
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Commissioner Paula, for being with us today. And I'm sorry that we did not get to hear from Commissioner Surridge, but we're now going to move on to three appointments to the commission there in the agenda item seven, eight and nine. They're going to be briefed together by Melissa Bailey on our central staff. We have, I believe, two of the three appointees with us today. We want to hear from them. We are going to be short on time. We still have another agenda item on the even year election ordinance, which does have some urgency because we do want to have that in time to be placed on the ballot if that is adopted. So, Melissa, please go right ahead. And this begins the staff report begins at ten. Thank you for your calls and good morning. Council members Melissa Bailey with central policy staff. As the Chair noted, this is a combined staff report for the three appointments which are item seven, eight and nine on the agenda, and they begin on page ten of your packet. As noted, the proposed motions are to confirm the executive's appointment of the following three persons to the King County Immigrant and Refugee Commission, who also became resident of Council District three for the remainder of a three year term expiring September 30th, 2024 five Wilhemina, who resides in Council District five for a partial term, expiring September 30th of this year. And Carlos Michel from Council District nine. For the remainder of a three year term expiring September 30th, 2024, are in the background section of the staff report that included some basic information about the commission, since you've just received a briefing straight to the section with Appointee Information, and I believe we have two of the appointees here who are eagerly waiting to talk with you . So I'm just going to give a little bit of information on appointing. So who wasn't able to be here today? Appointee and information for the appointees begin on page 11 of your packet. On page 12 is information for appointing yourself so based on rent in Highland area. He's currently a senior at Haven High School where he serves on the Associated Student Body Executive Board as the ACP parliamentarian. He will be attending Seattle Pacific University to study nursing. According to his application, Mr. Michelle is looking forward to bringing a youth perspective to the commission and he would serve on the commission as an organizational representative as he was nominated by a Lima fund out of Pueblo. That concludes my remarks that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Melissa. And is there any question? Okay. I've given a short time. We do have two and two of the appointees with us today, and I'd like to have each of them introduce themselves and see if we have any questions. First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for your appointment and which is very exciting. And we hope to be confirming you at the full council meeting coming up. But let's start off with, let's see, the dual. Saidu Sadiki I'm saying that Ron, I'm sure that welcome very much and we thank you for joining us and we'd like to hear you give us a little bit of background that you have and what your thoughts are about during the commission. Yes, thank you. My name is Gul Siddiqui and I have been very excited to join the commission. I have been living actually in Arizona for the past 15 years, very actively involved for eight years with the International Humanitarian Organization, moved to Seattle, Washington, and was blessed to continue this work and this passion of working with refugees and with immigrants locally as well as internationally. Here in Seattle. I live in Sammamish and am. Also working as the development manager with the International Rescue Committee, which is a humanitarian global organization responding to the needs of refugees and one of the largest resettlement organizations here in Washington, bringing in a variety of refugees from many, many different countries . I have joined them since January this year. And in fact, it's interesting. I'm sitting outside their Redmond Hotel as we speak because I had an appointment to meet with the site director there. And we are serving and. Helping with their resettlement and the education and the medical services very needs that we are seeing for the families here . So I'm very excited to be part of the King County Commission to be able to channel this effort and bring the voices of the refugees to the commission. Thank you very much. And again, congratulations. How long have you been meeting with the commission? Just this year. Okay. Yes. Very recently? Yes. And do you have any thoughts on what you would like to focus on in your work in serving on the commission? Yes. So I would primarily. The need is to bring the voices of the refugees who are underserved and who have needs that many times are overlooked. Like Lily mentioned, there is hesitation in sometimes speaking of their needs. And we are seeing a few challenges, for example, of Afghan women who are not seeing medical doctors, even though they may be pregnant because of their hesitation of seeing male doctors. So there are a few very sensitive needs that we have to determine how to. Best, you know, bring the resources to them, help with education in this aspect and mainly like connect the dots of what are the resources that are available here in Washington to serve them, but do it in a very empathetic way and do it in a way that shows compassion from Washington. And really, you know, help them in rebuilding their lives here in Washington. Terrific. Again, thank you for your wanting to serve. And you seem to have an outstanding background for being a member of this commission. I'd like to turn now to our second guest appointing Gray Hyman. But he others who I believe like prefers to go by type and excuse me, prefers to go by check like a checklist. So welcome and congratulations to you as well for your appointment. And we'd love to hear from you about your background and as being able to serve on the commission. And you've got a Newt yourself, please.
Speaker 4: I forgot that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: As you correctly said, my name is Amanat and. People want to call me tackler but shorten it so I can go by tackler. No problem. I am from Eritrea and I went to school in Ethiopia, so I have the passion to help people who speak. Amani and Teresa this are people who live in East Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and as a refugee, I.
Speaker 1: Would share.
Speaker 0: My.
Speaker 2: Experience with.
Speaker 4: Newcomers to this and my profession. I am a teacher. I have been teaching for the last 30 years. At five.
Speaker 0: Years.
Speaker 4: I am. I came to send to the United States and now I am working for open doors for multicultural families. This is an agency who specializes with. Different cultural people getting services for their children with disability. So we.
Speaker 1: We, we.
Speaker 4: Kind of unite disability and the cultural diversity that means people from different cultures having their loved ones with disability need culturally responsive services and in open doors we help with this kind of services. My focus is on Amharic and Greek speaking families, though there are other families from East Africa chicken in Tanzania that are included in my caseload. So what would I focus is I would focus on the resettlement of these people. As I said earlier, there are a lot of issues in Ethiopia, Eritrea.
Speaker 1: Other areas in South Africa, Yemen.
Speaker 4: All these people, they come to America and when they come here, they find very complex process. As earlier said, they were thinking to succeed easily and to be to integrate easily into the community. But when they come here, they find a lot of problems. So I would share my experience of resettling into the system and trying to be able at least to be self-sufficient on your own and then to help others as well. So that is my intention coming to the commission. I think that would be suffice. And I think you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for your willingness. And I can tell enthusiasm in serving on the commission. You bring an extraordinary background to that role. Are there any questions of my colleagues from my colleagues, council members and asking?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Chair Coe Wells. I'm sorry for talking so much today. I know we have a packed agenda, but this is a terrific agenda. You. I want to thank both of the appointees for their willingness to serve. And just to do a little advertisment here. A few years ago, the council, as we all know, the county owns our hospital. It's run with you, Doug. Medicine and the council a few years ago took steps to make sure we protected the clinics that are offered up there. And Harborview offers a very unique, as they describe it, International Medicine Clinic for high quality primary and mental health care services for refugees and immigrants 16 years of age and older. They have tremendous and broad language expertize and really have developed an expertize in this area. And I just given the presentation here, an update from the Refugee Commission and this new appointee. TS I thought I would mention it and perhaps encourage them to reach out for a presentation to make sure that the clinic is being connected with leaders in the community who are in direct contact with folks who maybe could use their services. It's a tremendous service we provide here and is more important than ever, I think, given the strife and dislocation around the world, much of which is landed here on our doorsteps in King County.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Dombroski. And are there any other questions or are you all ready to move on for action on these appointments? I assume that's already.
Speaker 2: Let me just say something.
Speaker 0: Between.
Speaker 2: The expenditure, the the other appointee, Carlos Michael. He is a is taking on the remainder of a term and he was raising rent and goes to Hayes in high school as a member of the SB executive board and is the ACP parliamentarian, which is a very useful thing to happen, is attending and going to attend Seattle Pacific University to study nursing next year. So supporters amendment as well.
Speaker 0: Cool. That's in my district where he will be attending college. So any unless there's any concern expressed, we will go ahead and take action on these three appointments. And Andy Nicholas, can we combine these into one vote or do we need to take them up separately? I think taking off separately would just be the easiest. Okay, we will do that then. So, Councilmember Dunn, as vice chair, I appreciate you're making these motions. The first one would be proposed motion 2020 20130.
Speaker 2: A proposed motion. 2020 20130.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any discussion? Will I please call the roll? Thank you, Jeff Caldwell. As I'm able to achieve I. Councilmember DEMBOSKY.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn.
Speaker 2: I have.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Thurmond.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Berry, I. That's the of the girl. Does the member ban Dybala? Councilmember. Hello.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Chuck Hall Well, I the board is ayes, no nos. The council member bonded by our excuse. Very good. With our vote. We've approved proposed motion 2020 20130, which we will send with the due cast recommendation for the consent agenda at a June 14th Council meeting. Okay. Next Council Member Dunn proposed motion 2020 2013 to be proposed.
Speaker 2: Motion 2020 20132.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Any discussion? Okay. Well, please call the roll. Thank you, chef. Caldwell Council member. Balducci High Council member.
Speaker 1: DEMBOSKY, I council member.
Speaker 0: Done.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Council Member McDermott, I. Councilmember Perry, I. Council member at the grow i. Council member Van de Boer. Council member, Sally. I. Scott Caldwell I know what is air no nos in council member Bundaberg Bower. Excuse me. Thank you. With our vote we have approved proposed motion 2020 20130. Where am I? Three, two. We will send with with the Duke's recommendation for the consent agenda to the June 14th Council meeting. And then lastly, I council and return proposed motion 2020 20133.
Speaker 2: View Proposed Motion 2020 20133.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any discussion? Okay, Bill and Kirk, then please call the roll. Thank you, Chair Caldwell Council Member By the time I council member DEMBOSKY I council member Dunn I had. Councilman McDermott.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: As a member. Perry, I. Council member Afterglow II Council Member Van de Boer. Council member, Sally High. Chuck how well on the boat is ayes no nos in council member type our excuse thank you with our vote we've approved proposed motion 2020 20133 which we will send with the deepest recommendation or the consent agenda to the June 14th Council meeting. And thank you both of the appointees who are here today. I really enjoyed meeting with you, reading about your background and am very, very.
Speaker 1: Impressed.
Speaker 0: And believe you're going to make very strong commissioners. You do not need to attend our June 14th meeting because we placed the appointments on consent for confirmation and we will be notified. You, of course you can you can tune in as well, but congratulations. Okay. Our last item on the agenda is proposed ordinance 2020 20180, which proposed to the King County Charter to move elections for state and county offices from odd numbers to even numbered years. And we would by passing this, we would send this to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection of the November eight, 2022
|
Motion
|
A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Carlos Michel, who resides in council district nine, to the King County immigrant and refugee commission.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_06012022_2022-0180
|
Speaker 0: Okay. Our last item on the agenda is proposed ordinance 2020 20180, which proposed to the King County Charter to move elections for state and county offices from odd numbers to even numbered years. And we would by passing this, we would send this to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection of the November eight, 2022 , general election. The Staff Report begins on page 22 and Nick Lowe briefs, and I hope we still have with us Julie Wise, director with the Department of Elections, and Kendell Hudson, chief of Staff, Department of Elections. And Councilmember Bell, did she introduced this? Do you want to say anything now? Councilmember rebuild the chair and wait till after the staff report. I'll wait. Thank you. Okay. And we're a little rushed on time. If we can, we would like to take action on this today. But if not, we will do so at our June 15th. Go right ahead, Auntie. Good morning. Andy McLellan. Council Central Staff. Just as a note, Cherie Sue is the lead stock of this item, but I will be presenting the verbal staff report this morning. I mean, as you noted, we also have staff in the departments, but options on the call materials for this item begin on page 22 of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2020 201801 Placed on the November 2022 election ballot, a charter amendment proposal to move elections for County Executive, County Assessor, County Director of Elections in County Council members from odd numbered to even numbered years. Each of these county positions was most recently elected in an odd numbered year for a four year term ending in in either 2023 or 2025. For each position, the proposed charter amendment would change the following term only to a three year term 2023 through 2026 or 2025 to 2028. And then move to move to an even your schedule, subsequent terms starting in either 2026 or 2028 would again be four year terms. A little bit of background. Every November, the state holds a statewide general election. By default, county officer elections are held in even years, with an exception for counties governed by a charter that provides for ideal elections such as King County elections for the county executive assessor. Director of elections and councilmembers are outlined in Article six of the King County Charter. As we've, as I mentioned before, they are currently elected in odd years. The remaining county office, the prosecuting attorney, is a position created by state law and is elected in even years. The Elections Department administers elections countywide for federal, state, judicial and local positions, along with state and local ballot measures. Table one on page 24 summarizes the type of elections currently administered and even at odd years of the seven home rule charter counties in Washington, Kingston, Home and Whatcom hold elections for county officers in odd numbered years. Moving to the analysis section, beginning on page 25, as we just as I just noted, but in table two summarizes on page 26, the proposed changes to the election schedule under the proposed Charter amendment, both for the county executive and council members from districts one, three, five, seven and nine. These were most recently elected in 2021 for a four year term to end in 2025 under the proposed Charter amendment. The next term would the term would change the following term only to a three year term from 2025 to 2028. Again, after that, the terms would be four years for the county assessor, elections director and council members from districts two, four, six and eight. These were most recently elected in 2019. Under the proposed charter amendment. The next term would change for a three year term for 2023 to 2026. After that, the terms would again be for years, the remaining county elected office prosecuting attorney was most direct elected and most recently elected in 2018 and serves four year terms. The proposed ordinance also repeals some sections that would no longer apply. Summarizing some of the cost considerations in this can be found on page 27 of your packet. Operational costs election staff indicate that moving county elect county officer elections from odd to even years would not directly result in operational changes or costs to department, executive or election staff believe it's unlikely that the proposed change would impact turnout and even are odd years and therefore unlikely it impacts staffing and costs. The only potential, a potential operational change or cost would be if moving it to even year elections resulted in two page ballots. Administering two page ballots would incur additional costs for printing, storage, space and staff time to sort through the boxes. Data does not show that moving to giving year elections would necessarily result in two page ballots. There is a table on page 27, table three, that summarizes the total number of ballot items in recent elections. The exact number of contests on a ballot given ballot would vary with respect to the allocation of election costs among county, state and local jurisdiction. Election costs are divided proportionally across jurisdictions appearing on a given ballot, the allocation of cost would shift. Is moving county officer elections to even years changes whether or not the county appears on the ballot. Turning to your direction or directing your attention to table four on page 29, this shows the potential fiscal impact if county officer elections had been held in even years instead of on. Moving County office elections from odd even years when occasionally have a fiscal impact to the county, and even years if the county would otherwise have no races or ballots or other measures on the ballot and table for these would be highlighted in blue. If the county does not run a ballot measure in odd years, local jurisdictions may see an increase to their election costs, since there would be no county races or measures. Since 2009, there have been three elections where holding county officer elections in even years would have increased cost to local jurisdictions. The 2009 primary, 2011 primary and 2015 primary elections in table four. This is highlighted in orange. In the in these odd year elections, the county did not run a ballot measure and only ran county officer races. If county officer races had instead been held in even years, the county would not have any races or measures on the ballot. Additional costs would have been passed along to the local jurisdictions. The cost to the county with the increase in the cost to the state would increase in this case. I will now discuss some of the potential policy considerations. This begins on page 30 of the open reading packet. Low voter turnout over the last 20 years, I can tell you have seen higher voter turnout in even number of years. There's a chart on page 30 that summarizes voter turnout or general elections in the county over the last 20 years. You can see that since 2010, the county's average voter voter turnout rate is 77% and even number of years and 47% an odd number of years. Low voter turnout data is also available from King County elections by precinct, and this is displayed in the two maps on page 31. Regarding impacts to your voter turnout based on voter turnout in other counties, data does not suggest that holding Cobb County not holding county officer elections in even years rather than odd would impact volunteer turnout. Number of races on ballots in county officer elections to even years would increase the number of races on even your ballots and reduce the number of races on all of your ballots. It is not clear to what extent voter response rates are impacted by ballot lanes, ballot position or voter interest in the types of races. What measures and finally, alignment with federal and state elections. Moving county officer elections even years would align with the election schedule would align the election schedule of these county offices with federal and state elections, which are held during even years. This means that county officer elections would take place in a different electoral context. Whether council desires, desires to align county officer elections with federal and state elections is a policy decision. Just a quick timing consideration to place this potential charter amendment on the November 2022 ballot. The last regular council meeting date for adoption as a non-emergency would be July 19th, 2022. As I mentioned earlier there, staff from the Department of Elections to answer any questions. This concludes my remarks. Thank you. Thank you very much. And excellent work. And this was mentioned, Julie Wise and Kendall Hudson from the Department of Elections are here to answer any questions. Do any of my colleagues have questions of Andy or Julie Wise who can.
Speaker 1: Vote.
Speaker 0: Hudson? COUNCILMEMBER two.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Caracol Wells. So my question is, I sort of heard a sort of reference phrase generally the state legislature considered a change like this to move a lot of these other races at a statewide level to even years. And there were a lot of legal hold ups and challenges in terms of what state law required. Did anyone do an analysis of how this might run afoul or not run afoul one way or the other of other state election laws?
Speaker 0: I'm for this. What I would need to divert to election staff, where we would have to get back to SRI or somebody would have to get back to you offline without question for the amount of analysis done. Do we have any data either of our election staff wanting to answer that question? Good morning to Chairman Reynolds and council members. It's great to be with you all this morning. Kim County Director of Elections Julie Wise. Councilmember Dunn I'll attempt to answer that question. Under RTW, county offices are up for election an even numbered years unless a home rule county decides otherwise. I know this is, I think just mentioned by Andy. So of those seven home world counties in Washington, King Snohomish and Whatcom counties are the only ones who hold elections for county officials in odd years. So I believe it does not run afoul of current RTW. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Okay. Look, so, councilman, rebels itching for a question and then this is prepared for me. Thank you. Maybe for Andy. Thank you. First of all, for the very detailed staff report and the visualizations in the staff reporter are really impactful. And I think they were super helpful. You mentioned that you looked at the number of resources that would increase or decrease if we made if the voters chose to to make this move. I did a quick count myself, and I believe that the difference in any given ballot would be between one and three positions, up or down , no more than that in any one year. Is that is that on track with what you found when you looked at it? I believe so. Again, I apologize. Sherry Steele is the lead staff on this, but I believe that is what was in every staff report table. Yes. I mean, it makes sense because you've got your council member in each vote, only has one council member and then you've got the executive and two other county wide positions, but they are not all up in the same cycle. So you would have your council member plus the executive, I believe, or you would have two other statewide positions. So and that depends on whether your council members, even district or district. But the point is when people talk about the ballot getting longer, the most number of positions that you would see added to any ballot would be three. On ballots that routinely have between 20 and 30 plus items on them. That's without a whole lot of measures. And by the way, this this this council has been responsible for a whole lot of measures. Thank you. Thank you. Council members online and then followed by council member Jim Barnes.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Chair Wells. Thank you, Andy, for this great briefing. Can you explain a little bit more what the reasons are between the fiscal impact chart? The table four that you had provided were the reasons behind increases or decreases to estimated costs.
Speaker 0: Yes. Just give me 1/2. I do apologize and I will defer again if the election staff wants to increase. But I believe, Julie, if you would like to help, I believe it's if one is removed, there'd be costs because there's proportionately divided among the jurisdictions. If the elections were shifted and ones were removed, there would be a cost that if the jurisdiction still had ballot items on the ballot, that they would receive that reduction in cost if the counties that had one more time. But that's what I think is happening there. It's offsetting the cost. If the county would remove their ballot items from the ballot, but again, would defer to election staff on the exact date of calculations. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Julie, did you want to add anything to that?
Speaker 0: I think he did a fabulous job. But yes, it really is the cost. The cost shifting between King County, the state and local jurisdictions based off of what appears on the ballot. So, for example, let's use like a real world example here. So in 2015, primary, the city of Kent. So if there wasn't anything from King County on the ballot in the 2015 primary, the city of Kent would have seen its elections cost go up from 43,000 to about 62,000. Right. For the years that the county cost would have increased. As Andy laid out in the in her presentation and in the report, you know, the years the county cost could have increased that numbers between 1.5 and 2.5 million. But it's all about that shifting between county, state and local jurisdictions about what appears on the ballot.
Speaker 2: I don't think I'm understanding at all, but I'll ask for further clarification offline.
Speaker 0: And then I'm happy to. We have Chief of Staff Kendall Le Van Hudson, who does a fabulous job explaining it. So we want her to take a go at it as well.
Speaker 2: We're certainly happy to do that.
Speaker 0: Let's have let's do that. Is she here? I'm here. Thank you. Count for number 500. Kendall Hudson, chief of staff for King County elections. This takes me multiple times to grasp when I first started. Seconds number. It is not you. The way election costs are divided is based proportionately on the number of registered voters per jurisdiction. So Kent's portion is based on how many registered voters there are out of the total. When you add the county in or take the county away, that means a whole lot of registered voters out of that total. So the costs aren't going up in any way. They're just spread out differently depending on what that denominator is. I don't know if that helps, but we can we can go off and do it again, too, if that helps.
Speaker 2: So why would county costs go up? First of all, by reading the chart that costs would go up if we moved to odd years or mine. I mean, even years are in my misreading that.
Speaker 0: It would really depend on the year. So there are some years where the county now wouldn't have anything on the ballot. In those years, local jurisdiction costs and state costs would go up. There are other years where the county otherwise wouldn't have had something on that even year ballot, or all of a sudden the county is paying a large share of that election. So the other I think thing I didn't mention is it doesn't matter how many things you have on the ballot. If you're on the ballot, it's based on how many voters you have. So the county could have one race or the country could have five races and ten measures. The course, the question of the cost is the same.
Speaker 2: I got it now. Thank you so much, gentlemen.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Dombroski.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Chair. Call Wells and Andy, thanks for your excellent staff report presentation. Thank you, Director Wise, for being here. Very interesting issue with respect to the turnout and the issue of ballot drop off. We know that in a presidential year, a lot of people vote in that presidential race and some don't vote for anything else on the ballot. But usually as you go down, there's a drop off. Where would the county races appear on the ballot? These are the federal candidates or even years in Congress, state candidates, when we have the statewide elections, legislative candidates. Kind of. Where would these races appear? Other ballot questions, city races. If they were to come over.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Dombrowski, for the question. You're correct. They would come after you got federal, state, and then it would.
Speaker 1: Be all.
Speaker 0: The state offices and then the county. And we can, of course, draft up an example of what that ballot would look like.
Speaker 1: Oh, you could. Sure, we could do that.
Speaker 0: That would be.
Speaker 1: Amazing. So I was actually I didn't know it would. So the county races would be the last on the ballot down at the bottom on the back side. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 0: That is correct. But they would come before, right? Like if there was local jurisdiction ballot measures. And except for judicial, I think would be the very last.
Speaker 1: Okay. I don't mean to put you on the spot on this, because I.
Speaker 0: Think.
Speaker 1: It might be interesting to see see a ballot. And then since we have some counties that are doing this, of the 700 charter counties in the state, three of us, I think you said are on odd year, the other four on even. Could we have some analysis done of the percentage drop off of the county races, you know, and maybe apply that to here? I think as I understand it, the expectation is that are the number of people participating would still be expected to be higher. But I'm kind of curious as to the magnitude of that. If they were to use other jurisdictions, say the mean of the other four counties that are doing it, even their drop off on a county council or some of those are commission counties may be kind of what that would be.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And Counsel.
Speaker 1: I have one more question.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 1: This is of great this is of interest to me. I didn't hear it addressed in the public testimony, which was excellent or in our staff. And I'm not sure if that's because it's more of a political question. But when you're talking politics, you're often talking money and we no longer have public financing in the county. We did have a program years ago, and that is a big issue in terms of access. And I'm it seems to me the cost to run an election where if if the number of voters you have to reach, it'd be higher. And I am interested in whether we could do any assessment of of that, either at the county with our independent staff or maybe maybe some of the folks who are interested outside the outside of our government could help us with that. But the issue of kind of incumbents being able to raise a lot of money and a barrier that that attracts to greater participation on the ballot is such is of interest to me as we explore this question. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Jerry. Thank you, Councilmember Perry, followed by councilmembers. Hello. Thank you. Thank you for this. For all of the great testimony and for this report, direct wise, I'm always interested in your reports. And so it's from what I'm hearing statistically, if we actually follow the data on this, that there is more participation by by a huge volume of people voting on those currently off year elections when they're moved to on your elections or on year elections moved to even year elections, there is because there's a certain amount of voting in the on year elections. And then then what this what the data is saying, if I'm hearing it correctly, is that it only increases, it doesn't decrease, but it only increases when it is moved to the even year elections. Is that correct? Director was doing to answer that. Councilmember Perry, thank you for the question. You know, it's really difficult to predict what changes could happen with turnout. But yes, even your turnout often reaches 70, 80% in the end. But then in an odd year elections, we will see like here in South King County jurisdictions, hitting 30% turnout. So even years generally, again, are getting double what the turnout is in an off year election. And I'm not sure if that answers your question. Well, I just I'm trying to be really clear on like trying to understand this. And first, I'd love to see a ballot. That would be awesome. And maybe I need the the off line conversation that councilmembers are asking for. The question I have is, statistically, we have the statistics, I think, that show the increase in participation specifically for those that would otherwise have been in an odd year election when they moved to an even year election, either in our state or elsewhere. We have the statistics available to us, do we not? Of those that wear those ballots, then have an increased response than those of where they sit on the ballot, simply because an exponential number or a greatly increased number vote on even year elections. And by virtue of those that would already be motivated to vote in odd year elections, you already have that population. Plus you're putting in front of people who vote only in even your elections that don't often vote in odd years. So you're putting it in front of more people. So I'm just wondering about the data itself. So because we have these sort of big ideas about it, but I know that you were talking about the statistics and others were talking about the statistics. Is it possible to actually see those statistics where there's been a shift that we've been able to record? As in to say, you know, selecting those that voted that don't previously they vote only and even your election said don't previously vote in of your elections showing statistically where those folks now vote when they had the opportunity. You know for those folks down ticket the police director was. Councilmember Perry, just to clarify on the question, of course, I'm happy to get my, you know, my data from the office around this to see what sort of data we can pull out here. So I think we can definitely follow up. I'm not sure if the question is, do we have any models or examples of things that used to be an off year elections and are pulled now to the general and that we've seen a higher turnout in that. I can't in the 22 years that I've been here in elections, can't recall something where we're going to be able to identify that. But we certainly will take it back to the office and dig in deeper around that. And it sounds like it looks like, Councilmember Perry, that that was your question is do we have something that that would which would show a similar sort of change? Right. Are there examples that exist that way? Because I think that's the verbiage around this is people are saying, no, no, it won't. And others are saying yes, it will. And do we have any simple examples of where, in fact, that has been the case? I'm just curious about that. Councilmember Perry, I'm going to move on now to Councilmember Satellite previous question, because we're really getting late. We're already almost 15 minutes over our meeting time. And I want to have to thinking about did she be able to comment on her legislation? So Councilmember satellite and then councilmember about it.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Chair Caldwell's I think I'm asking something in a similar spirit as Councilmember Perry, but maybe hopefully easier data to track down in the areas that have shifted to even year elections to local level elections see the same or significantly higher percentage turnout as compared to if they were still in the artier elections. This is not a trend that we see.
Speaker 0: From some members. Actually, we can try to dig into a little bit of the data around California. California has completed sort of a recent change, which is what comes to mind with Councilmember Perry's question as well. But when we look across the state, turnout patterns across counties with even versus your county races don't show any real pattern . And turnout varies so much anyway across the state. But looking across the country, we haven't really been able to find any real valid comparisons to help us understand what might or might not happen with such a change as this. But again, happy to take it back to the awesome Team Kerry elections team to see if there's some more data sleuthing we can do here in Washington state and across the country.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'd like to now have Councilmember Balducci speak on the legislation. And Councilmember Bell, I think given the lateness of the time, we will defer taking action on this to our June 15th meeting so we can get the material from director wise as well. Yes, thank you, Chair. I think that's that's good to make sure that people get answers to their questions to the extent that there is available before we before we take action would would make good sense. I just wanted to say a few words about this. The this proposal came to me from some advocates in the community for who are looking to improve access to elections. It is a principle that this council has supported in a number of ways over the last several years, including expanding access to ballot boxes, including really pioneering prepaid postage for ballots that then went statewide. We have, along with our elections director and department, been very diligently committed to increasing access to the ballot box and thereby making sure that the people like us who are elected to represent the public are elected by as representative of a sample and as large of a sample of the public as possible. And so this that's what this is about. This is about making elections, continuing to make elections fair and accessible. You've heard a lot of numbers, and I know that there's a lot of desire to dig down deeply. But just at the very base level, you look at the turnout for positions in this county like assessor in 2019 , where the turnout was 31% of registered voters like our elections director who we love. But who's the vote on her line in 2019 was 41% of registered voters. And then in 2018, the year before, when our prosecutor countywide position is up 61% of total voters. So you see just the number. The increase from one year to the next is in double digits. I think it was pointed out very well in some of the excellent public comment that we heard today that we we would invest in something that got us safe, two, three, 5% increase in participation. And here we're talking about 20%, 50% in some years. It's it's very compelling. But for a neighborly example, last year, in 2021, our King County executive race saw 40% turnout. The Pierce County executive, who's I think they're statutory county and therefore do elections in even years. 82% turnout. Turnout for King County Council members in 2021 range between 30% and 47%. Turnout for Pierce County Council members in 2020 ranged between 75 and 85%. And you're not always going to get those eye popping numbers because it's not always going to be a presidential election. But those are the people who voted for president and Pierce County Council. They got down there to those to those lower level ballots, lower level votes. Voters who are more engaged in odd year elections tend to be older, whiter and wealthier than the general electorate that vote and they are voters more likely to be paying attention and voting in off year elections by moving to even year elections. We would align those with these important local offices with more high profile state and federal offices that attract higher turnout by more voters and more diverse voters. Younger people, more people of color, more renters. That makes us the people who are elected to sit here at King County, more representative of the people who send us. And that's that's got to be good for democracy. So I'm going to stop right there. I guess the last thing I will say is we are by no means pioneering here. If we do this, if we put this out to the voters and the voters approve it, we will join the majority of counties in this state that have their positions elected in even years, because most states do that because they are cold states. But we will also join other charter states that do this. So charter counties, I should say. So it looks very compelling to me. I want to make sure that members have a chance to get their questions answered and that we can then hopefully move forward to ask the voters to have their say about when they would like to see these positions on the ballot. I thank you, Chair Caldwell's for the extra time today. Well, thank you. I found Jeremiah's very compelling, and I'm glad that I also signed Spencer to this legislation. Are there any questions of councilmember ability to. If not, we will take this up at our next meeting, which is on June 15th, and we will hope to have some materials or a sample ballot that we can look at that will be provided by Director Wise from the Department of Elections. And I think this has been a terrific discussion and something that is new to all of us here at this county that I think has a great deal of promise. And I thank you, Councilmember Belgian chief, for bringing the legislation forward. Now that I'm Kirk, I know that Councilmember Von Bauer was excused from some votes. Were there any other members who were excused? Madam Chair, council member Monday about what is on the line right now. Oh, yes. Okay. Councilmember Bowen. Right. Would you like to vote on the measures that you missed?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me all right?
Speaker 0: Yes, we can, Madam Chair.
Speaker 2: Thank you. All right. Barbosa Affirmative.
Speaker 0: Okay. So for any of the votes that you missed, you are saying you about you vote now affirmatively for all of them.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And did any other member miss the vote? No, Madam Chair. No, nothing. Very good. Before we adjourn, I'd like to let you know that our next regular meeting of the committee of the hall is scheduled for June 15th, at which time we will hear from a panel providing a status report on the Harborview Medical Center. We'll also take up action on the ordinance, placing the ballot a charge, a change to our ballots to even number of years. And we will have further discussion and possible action on the reappointment of beneath the condo wall as director of the Department of Public Defense. And a preview for our meeting after that, which will be July six. We're planning now to have a panel and gun safety measures that are provided by the state, the county and other local jurisdictions, jurisdictions likely these will the panelists will be members of various departments in the county. And we will also have a discussion on what else might be done to ensure greater public safety in the question of gun use. I know that Councilmember Dan Barsky is already working on some legislation, and if that timing works out, we could take that up as well. If anybody else is working on legislation, we might be able to include that as well. So one other item that we will also hear from Dwight Daly and we will take up a motion for a discussion and possible action on that is sponsored by council members on extreme weather sheltering. And so I think that that'll be a good time to get ready for this summer. I thank you all for participating in today's meeting. And if there's no other business we are chairing.
|
Ordinance
|
AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to the King County Charter to move elections for certain county offices from odd-numbered to even-numbered years; amending Sections 640, 647 and 650.20 of the King County Charter and repealing Sections 650.40.15, 650.40.25 and 660 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection at the November 8, 2022, general election.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_05182022_2022-0191
|
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for being with us today. And we will be in touch and look forward to our next meeting. With that, we will now move to something that is urgent. Number seven on that large and as proposed motion 20 20191, which is to confirm the executive's appointment of Paddy Cole Tindal as county sheriff. And the staff report begins on page 25 with Bowman will be briefing us. We do have with us again Director Debrief and PSP and Arena Hashimi from Director who's director Council Relations from Executive Office. We also have Melody Garcia, Public Safety Advisory Committee member, and Katie Cole Tindal, who is the appointee and is currently serving the interim share. Director Di Bain has requested that she be able to introduce the interim sheriff. And so we will follow the same process. Go right ahead, Dwight.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember. So it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to introduce Executive Konstantinos, a nominee for King County Sheriff Patty Cole Tindal. I've been here at the county for a little over 12 years, and I worked with Patty that entire time. She worked when I started the director of the Office of Labor Relations. Many of you know that she later also took on the role of the director of the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. She subsequently then went to work as one of the senior staff in the sheriff's office. Most recently was the undersheriff and then has been the acting sheriff while we went through a national search. I had the privilege of participating in that national search, and we had some very strong candidates. And at the end of the day, council member executive Constantine felt that Patty's somewhat unique approach to the work, her very diverse background and her experience in the sheriff's office meant that she was the best candidate. And I have to say personally, I agree just a little bit about her professional background. She has a bachelor's degree from Central Washington University, a master's degree from Troy State, has worked in a variety of law enforcement related positions throughout her career before she came into the Office of Labor Relations. Perry has a very strong familiarity with the sheriff's office. I think you'll find in the pack a strong support from many of the employees in their bargaining units in the sheriff's office. Also, we had extensive involvement of our contract cities and other contract partners. And you should have some information in the packet about their support for her nomination. So I have to say it's been a great experience for me personally, working with Patty throughout her career since I've been here in the county. I will also add that my observation in, you know, roughly four and a half months that she has been the interim sheriff is she has moved forward some very thoughtful and perhaps long overdue initiatives that are the kind of thing that I think all of us expect from our sheriff's office. So with no further ado, I would put in front of you the nomination of Patty Tindall as King County sheriff.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I really appreciate the introduction and I'd like to welcome the sheriff called Tendo. We are going to go ahead with the staff report before we turn to you for your remarks and Q and I just wanted to welcome you and congratulate you on the nomination for confirmation. So with that, we will turn to Nick Bowman from our central staff to provide the briefing on this item. And we will also hear from Melody Garcia from the Public Safety Advisory Committee. Go right ahead, Nick.
Speaker 2: Good morning, Councilmembers. For the record, Nick Bowman, Council Central Staff Proposed Motion 2020 2019. That one would conform to confirm the executive's appointment of Patti Tindal as the Chief Officer of the Department of Public Safety. Also known as County Sheriff. The King County Sheriff's Office provides law enforcement services for unincorporated King County and several governmental agencies, including full service policing to 12 contracted cities. In addition to providing patrol services. KSO delivers numerous specialty law enforcement services, including an air support unit, Marine Unit, SWAT, major crimes investigations, bomb disposal, major accident response and arson investigations. KSO also performs other functions such as emergency 911 call receiving and dispatching service and court orders related to civil court filings, issuing concealed weapons permits and sex offender registration. The Sheriff's Office 2021 2022 biennial budget is approximately 409 million, with 1177 fees, including 782 commissioned officers and 395 professional staff. For a bit of background, from 1852 to 1969, the King County sheriff was an elected position that operated more or less independently. In 1969, the voter approved home rule charter went into effect, which made many elected officials, including the sheriff, appointed positions subordinate to the executive as an appointed position. The sheriff became subject to the selection process set out in Section 340 of the charter. In 1996, the King County Council adopted proposed Ordinance 9575 five, which submitted to the voters a charter amendment to establish the county sheriff as a nonpartisan elected official with a four year term. In November of 1996, the voters approved this charter amendment, returning the sheriff to an elected position. Fast forward about 25 years. In July 2020, the King County Council adopted Ordinance 19139. We submitted to the voters a charter amendment reestablishing the sheriff as an appointed position. And in November of 2020, the voters approved Charter Amendment 25, returning the county sheriff to an appointed position with a requirement for the consideration of community stakeholder input during the selection, appointment and confirmation process, which was to be prescribed by ordinance to fulfill the Charter's obligation for community stakeholder input in the selection, appointment and confirmation of a new sheriff. The Council adopted ordinance 19249 and established the Public Safety Advisory Committee, otherwise known as Peace Act. The Peace Act consists of 13 individuals from various stakeholder communities representing the geographic, ethnic and economic diversity of Ccso service area and those with expertize in law enforcement reform. The committee was charged with two distinct bodies of work first to engage with and receive input from stakeholder communities to provide guidance to the Council and the Executive in this selection, appointment and confirmation process for appointing a new sheriff. And second, to solicit input on the value stakeholder community's hold for how law enforcement services should be provided and the way the county can improve the delivery of those services. The ordinance further required the Peace Act to deliver a report to the Executive and Council detailing the Committee's efforts to fulfill its responsibilities to interview candidates for sheriff identified by the Executive, and to attend a meeting of the Committee of the whole to provide its input on the sheriff appointee selected by the Executive. The SEC met a total of 21 times from March 2021 until its delivery of its final report on September 30th, 2021. The report provided recommendations for the qualities and expertize the new sheriff should possess, including a law enforcement background and track record of making decisions with community as a focus. Strong leadership and commitment to lasting change and have a history of collaboration and partnerships. A record of success with elected officials, other jurisdictions and unions. And knowledge of bipoc and LGBTQ plus issues. On April 13th 13th, 2022, after a nationwide search for qualified candidates, members of the Peace Corps met with three finalists chosen by the Executive for the Position of Sheriff for impression interviews. Each finalist candidate was given approximately 45 minutes to answer the panel's questions and talk about their vision for Casey herself. The feedback representatives delivered their impressions of the sheriff's candidate to the executive on April 20th, 2022. Michael Tindall, who has been serving as acting sheriff since January of this year, was then announced as the executive's appointee for sheriff on May 3rd, 2022. Acting Sheriff Colton Doyle has over 30 years of experience in public service for law enforcement, the labor relations and human resources. Acting Sheriff Court Tuttle started her career in law, first in law enforcement in 1991 as a special agent for the Washington State Gambling Commission, a position for which she completed the state's Basic Law Enforcement Academy or earlier chief in working for King County government in 1998 as an investigator in the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention and later as assistant director in the Department's Community Corrections Division. In 2010, Acting Sheriff Cultural became the county's director of Labor Relations, as she also served as interim director of the county's Office of Law Enforcement Oversight in 2014. In 2015, the acting sheriff serves as the Chief of Technical Service Division for the Sheriff's Office, where she worked for almost five years before becoming undersheriff in 2020. She was then appointed acting sheriff in November 2021 and has served in that role since January 2022. Her full resumé is included in the confirmation packet under attachment five. While Acting Sheriff Cole Tindall was at one time a certified peace officer. That certification has since lapsed. According to the executive, upon confirmation by the council, acting sheriff Coach End will complete Boyer to be recertified as a commissioned officer within one year for appointment. The Academy is currently 19 weeks long and she will attend at no later than January 2023 to meet the certification requirement. While at the Academy, an acting sheriff from Ccso leadership team will be appointed now in accordance with King County Code 216 110. The executive has requested confirmation of Patti Call Tindall as the Chief Officer of the Department of Public Safety, who may also be referred to as the county sheriff. Staff has not identified any issues with the proposed appointment. And furthermore, once the Peace Act members in attendance today deliver their impressions of the appointee, the process for which the acting sheriff general was elected and appointed will be in compliance with King County Charter Section 350, 2040 and Ordinance 19 249. That concludes my staff report. However, there are some amendments which I can brief now or wait until later to discuss.
Speaker 0: Please go write prescribing.
Speaker 2: Amendment one on page 32 of your packet would align the appointment motion with the language in charter section 340. The appointment provisions of the Charter as well as Charter Section 350 2040, making the sheriff position an appointed one and the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Public Safety. And then there is a title amendment which would simply align the title with the changes made by Amendment one. And that concludes my support.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Now, before we go on to hear from apparently three Peace Committee members who are with us, are there any questions of Nick? Cenac You did such a great job. No, I think. Reporter No questions.
Speaker 2: That's always the hope.
Speaker 0: Okay. We, as I mentioned, we do have three members from the Public Safety Advisory Committee. Those are Melody Garcia from Giddings and Livio de la Cruz. I hope I did not mispronounce today, but we very much like to hear from you. Just one reminder. It's 11 I seven. The committee is due to be adjourned at 1130, but we can go a little bit longer. So who would like to speak first? I think I can go. This is Melody Garcia pointed to his work as Melody. Garcia, good to see everyone. No, I'm going to I'm going to let Livio and Frank do most of the talking. But I just wanted to say, I am I'm really excited to have sheriff got involved and especially as a woman of color myself. Really excited for the partnership and the opportunity to work with yourself. Thank you so much. Thank. Play with one or the other two. Like to go hurt. I see. Livia.
Speaker 2: I can go next.
Speaker 0: Please just.
Speaker 2: Say so. I'm going to divide my thoughts into two things. First, you talk about shared content of a candidacy, why it's so compelling. Then my second bucket of thoughts are kind of bigger picture like How did this process go? I figured the council would like to hear our thoughts because this is kind of a unique approach.
Speaker 0: So first, introduce yourself. The director.
Speaker 2: Oh, yes. I'm Olivia Dela Cruz. I'm one of the members of the Public Safety Advisory Committee. And specifically, I was one of the members appointed due to my experience with activism and police policy and all that stuff. And so the you kind of I feel like you all know the pitch of why behind Catena's candidacy. Like it's a pretty compelling pitch, like the unorthodox background, the mix of public service, and that's outside of the sheriff's office and also inside the sheriff's office. And on top of that, there's just a lot of like strong core, fundamental leadership skills. It's like promoting steady direction, refreshing vision, strong communication skills, strong relationship building like this, the core stuff that you really need to be in any leadership position. And but the, the, the, the, the background is particularly compelling because at one point the piece I did consider the question of what if we had a sheriff who was not a cop, basically, like what if they did not come from that background? And after weighing like the pluses of that would be, well, we could potentially get a more refreshing leadership approach and more willingness to question practices that have led to tension between police and community before. But on the other hand, it would undermine their ability to lead the department effectively to build the kind of reputation and credibility within the department. And so Cortinas kind of this almost appears to be like the best of both worlds, in my opinion. And yeah, and Cotillard was also at most of the meetings. And so while many of our recommendations in our report are kind of simplified, like she she actually understands it and much more, which is exciting for us. And just to remind the committee members that the one of our core representation recommendations was the idea that the sheriff's office cannot and should not be the end all, be all for public safety. It's really a larger responsibility shared by all of the departments, all of the pieces of government. And for that reason, whenever anything goes down, any big concerns about safety come up. We need to all collectively learn not to reflexively bang on the door of the sheriff for all of them. We need to kind of all come together and evaluate the issue holistically. And that means funding it holistically as well. And so Sheriff Cotillo and that vision and is on board, it's pretty helpful for us. So the next set of thoughts I have is about the process. And you already heard an overview of the process that was followed. One of the biggest recommendations, the piece I made was that we have community involvement as early as possible in the recruiting process. And in this case, we were able to get a community rep in the first round interviews, which is remarkable. I'm I'm honestly, I want to I want someone to fact check, like, is this the first time this region that something like that has happened for the first round of bids for a law enforcement agency later? I'm curious about that. But it's very big. And one of the main concerns historically has been like, well, it needs to be confidential because you need to maintain a confidentiality of these candidates who are not quite announced to everyone that they are applying for a new job. And we were able to do that. We got a confidentiality agreement. We did that. So the piece that actually selected me to be that rep on those first round interviews, it's my understanding that there are two hiring panels, two individual panels of people, and I was on one of the panels and I recommend that it improve them for reasons that I'll explain upcoming. I do think it would have been strong if there was community rep in both home panels. So another. Then the next step. After the first round interview, the finalists were selected and a piece of work had an opportunity to meet with the three finalists and have what we call impression interviews in which informed the they were opinions of it. And I tried my best of the one person who actually met all the candidates already to not interview. The with everyone's formation of opinions during these interviews and to it was kind of it was interesting to see that most of our opinions aligned anyway. So then so that that that's pretty good pretty successful. I don't have much insight into how the public forms feedback fed into the internal process for evaluating the final point. But I just have a few more thoughts. Which is it really? I was really amazed by the quality of the candidates that were attracted by this process. It is a sign that the process was working successfully, that we attracted so many good quality candidates particularly, and I have to disclose that the SEC ultimately did recommend in favor of though, and also in favor of Mr. Kimball a bit. And Mr. Kim was kind of the top choice by the piece. However, the fact that Kim was someone like Kim on made it that far in the process is is positive. It's what we'd expect. I also have to disclose that the third finalist or the piece, I felt like they did not meet the requirements and should have probably been filtered out earlier in the process. And so that is a bit of a weakness in the process. And how did this happen? Maybe there probably and this is just my opinion, not the piece, because I met all the other candidates. I do feel like there are multiple other candidates are more qualified than the one here. Yes. And that's the end of my piece, actually. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for your perspective as one member of the Public Service Advisory Committee. I do have thank goodness you're with us as well. If you would like to make remarks. Here. Apparently it's not here.
Speaker 2: She was here, but I think he had to leave.
Speaker 0: Oh, that's too bad. Okay. Thank you very much for speaking with us, both of you. Melody Garcia and Olivia de la Cruz. We will now turn to our sheriff, interim sheriff, coal tingle. And first of all, I'd like to find out how you would like to be spoken to. Identified. You're married? Yeah. My first name is fine. Okay. Thank you, Patty. And to give you the opportunity now to speak to us, to tell us about your printer and what you bring to the position, although, of course, we know you've got a tremendous background and did a great job of providing that to us. But we may have some questions for you, but I'd like to give you this opportunity to tell us more about yourself and. Go right ahead. Thank you very much. I appreciate being able to speak before you council. And I just want to say I am very honored and privileged to have been the nominee, the executive's nominee for the permanent appointed sheriff. As Livio described, there was an extensive process that I went through and the other candidates, and I'm just thrilled that I was chosen. Let me talk a little bit about myself and my philosophy and what the work we've been doing here at the sheriff's office. So Nick explained my career, so I'm not going to go over that again. But I will say that I am a nontraditional law enforcement executive. We all know I've had some time in law enforcement, but then time outside. And I think that's what gives me a unique perspective and a different lens. I'm able to translate from inside the agency to outside and from outside to the agency. And also that my working with the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight, the fact that I oversaw that office, which is oversight into this very agency. So giving me also a unique perspective into the sheriff's office, how it operates, the issues that it faces. So in my almost six and a half years here at the sheriff's office in various leadership capacities, has also, I think, uniquely prepared me to be the leader of this agency going forward. I am excited to kind of do some different things that we started in the beginning of the year. One is our engagement with community in a way that I think the Sheriff's Office has not done previously. So we are just starting that work. But I see this as a wonderful opportunity to engage with the community so that they can help us create the co-creation of the law enforcement agency that they want for King County and with the specific communities, because their needs are different. As we know, we have contract cities. We also police in urban unincorporated areas. So we have to transit contracts. We police for the Michael Shoot tribe as well as the King County International Airport. So our you know, we have 2300 square miles that we are responsible for. And so I just feel like this is a great time at this space and time to lead this agency and move things forward. The other thing I want to say is I have been working diligently, along with my leadership team, to create a workplace that our current employees want to be part of going forward because they are the key to our recruitment issues is retention. While we are working to staff up, we need to retain our good and qualified well-experienced officers that we have. So any opportunity that I can work with you council in addition to the executive on how we can create incentives potentially for those that are almost at retirement age to stay while we staff up will be appreciated. So we do have a large number of vacancies, I will say that. But we are working hard, like I said, to create a positive workplace that people want to be part of going forward. I'll kind of end it there because I know time is short and I don't want to and I know there will be questions. Thank you very much for speaking with us. And I think there will be some questions. I don't want to shortchange your time. Our previous agenda item went a little bit longer, but I hope that most of us, all of us can stay here for a few minutes beyond the 1130 timeframe because we do plan on taking action today. Okay. With that, are there any questions? Council member Perry. Thank you. I think I don't know if it's a secret that I'm such a big fan, but one of the reasons I am a great fan of interview currently interim, the sheriff called Jindal's eye right until until the vote. Is that the correct title? Yes. Yes. Okay. Interim sheriff called, though. One of the reasons I am such a big fan is that she's a Girl Scout, once a Girl Scout, always a Girl Scout and has worked on women's leadership from very early ages. And I have such a great respect for engaging women in leadership, engaging our girls and junior girls, junior Girl Scouts in leadership. And and just a shining example, because it does take a great deal more to be a leader in your position, in this position, than it takes someone who identifies as male or someone who identifies or who is wise. And. And I really appreciate that the just the the all things being equal, your your incredible leadership in this space and you being brought to this position visually, as well as the amazing leadership that you bring to the table. So I'm very excited about this. Thank you very much. I appreciate those kind words. Thank you. Are there any questions from any of my colleagues? Councilmember Sarai.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Charcoal Wells. Thank you so much for being here. Interim sheriff called Tindall. Could you speak a little bit to your vision for alternative crisis response mental health responders? You know, there's a large movement right now to make sure that our response systems create more good and are more tailored to people who are in behavioral health crisis. I know part of our movement for making the sheriff an appointed position and creating Charter Amendment six as well was just to integrate the sheriff's services more closely with our public health systems. And now you will sit on a board, leadership board with the executive, Constantine's other department heads, where you will be more in close touch with DHS and Public Health and all of our other public health systems. Can you speak a little bit to your vision for how we respond to people who are in need from a mental health perspective, from an addiction perspective? What is the future of public safety look like in your in your view.
Speaker 0: Your council members? I mean, so the way that I view that in my philosophy is we need to make sure that we are bringing the proper resource to whatever the issue is. And we all know that sometimes we don't need somebody with a gun and a badge to address what is not a crime. So I'm proud to say the King County Sheriff's Office has already started to engage in that work. We already have a program called Radar, where we have a mental health professional riding with a law enforcement officer so that when they get that call, the right person is there that can provide immediate service to the person in crisis . So if it is somebody who is experiencing homelessness or a mental health issue, we've got that person right there and we can tap them into the appropriate resource. So I do think I believe that law enforcement needs to have a seat at the table with community, with social service agencies, with our partners in King County government to create and address issues systems where we can help those who need it and bring them out, connect them with the resources that they need so that they can get their basic needs met. And I believe that will then allow us and law enforcement to respond to the calls that we should be responding to. But more importantly, folks are getting the help that they need. But I see this as a societal issues. So it's not just law enforcement, but we need to be key in Interpol, because what happens is the 911 calls call comes in and then we get dispatch. So, you know, we need to find out what is the source. Why did somebody maybe if they stole something to eat, it's because they were hungry. You know, they were trying to provide for their family. We also have other programs where we have a lead, which is law enforcement assisted diversion, where low level crimes deputies have the ability to divert people to resources rather than have them enter the criminal justice system. So we already are engaged in some of these activities, but I see us in the beginning stages and there's so much more work ahead. And so I am ready to lead this agency to work with community, work with the council, other department excuse me, executive branch agencies to really address this issue holistically here in King County.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, both of you. Are there any other questions from colleagues? Councilmember Dombroski?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Chair Wells and Sheriff Tyndall, congratulations on your well-deserved and well earned nomination. I look forward to voting yes. Following on from personalized comments, I do think it's a big opportunity and a big challenge that's coming with the rollout of, I think, nine, eight, eight, the new non-police number, which our state legislature has set up. And now they've made the vision. But you're going to have to implement to some degree. And how do we choose that through our our call centers and that and I, I know that the practice with our navigator, it will be helpful to build on that. Just by way of opening remarks, I want to reflect that there was a big question about whether we would ever be here today when the Council put a charter amendment before the voters and the voters did something quite unusual on that is they gave up power that they held and they entrusted us, the executive and council, with this decision who should be the sheriff of the county. And I'm very, very pleased to say that I think the executive, our public safety advisory committee and hopefully this council are taking that trust that's been granted to us and performing and delivering with a tremendous person. And that's you and me. I think it's worth reminding folks that when you were appointed interim sheriff, you said you would not pursue the job and you didn't pursue it until you were asked to pursue it by a number of folks here at the council, I think, including myself, that also in your front line, your your deputies and people within the department and in the community, I need you to know that our deputies stop me when I'm coming into the courthouse and are supportive of what you're doing and appreciative of what you're doing and are grateful for the way you have come in and are leading this department by caring for them, by having meetings with them, by communicating with them, by supporting them. And we see that here at the council and your leadership and your engagement and your commitment is making a difference. I think we want to see you and your department succeed. Frankly, we we have a never obligation to the voters entrusted us with that. And so I'm excited for your leadership. I am inspired by you. I've now got to work along side you in different capacities here in nine years. And I want to share just two things with folks about why I'll be voting. Yes, probably. And there's a lot of reasons, but one is your independence, you know, in different capacities. I think back to your work as the Labor Relations Director and you present to council and sometimes I'd have a tough question to for you a little dialog and you did not hesitate to stand up and push back and say, this is why we're doing this and this is where we're at and disagree with somebody in power. And I think that that is essential in this role as the chief of our law enforcement department, our sheriff, that you have that trait, have that ability and will use it.
Speaker 3: And I.
Speaker 1: Respect that. And the second thing was a recent observation. Our law enforcement officers are charged to run toward danger and put themselves at risk. And some may wonder, well, sure, Tyndall hasn't been a patrol officer. She has some law enforcement background. But what are her instincts in that regard?
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: At a recent press conference here in the courthouse, it was interrupted by somebody who was angry, who came charging in, who disrupted the event and was threatening and angry. There were a number of electeds there and you were there. He then left the room and you went after him. You went into the danger. I observed that, and I also observed that you went alone. That said All I need to know about your instincts for this role. In addition to everything I've seen from you here in my time with the Council, I'm very proud that you're willing to serve in this capacity, and I hope you'll let us know what we can do to support you as you undertake this important role. Thank you so much for your willingness to do it.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you both. Councilmember Bowdich, followed by Councilmember Penny. You're muted. Council member. Council member. Terry had her hand up before me. I saw your hand. No, no, no. You are going to hear. I want to try to chair the meeting. Thank you. But so I just want to again state my support and for this this appointment. And a lot of the reasons why you're you're the right person with the right experience have been said already. I think what I'll say your content is that. The challenge that you are accepting here is to build an approach to public safety that creates trust between the communities that we serve and law enforcement professionals, and builds a more robust and nuanced.
Speaker 2: Response.
Speaker 0: To crises. We have for a very long time, maybe going back to deinstitutionalization and in the seventies relied increasingly on people, as you say, with a gun and a badge to respond to all kinds of crises. And, you know, as somebody who has worked alongside folks in uniform for a number of years myself, they know that they're not always the right answer and they're put in a very difficult position. In addition, we have to still yet address the the racial component and disparities in public safety and how we approach public safety and how different communities feel either. Either protected, you know, or persecuted. And and we are building that mutual support among all of the professions that it takes and the public. That's really the challenge, because nobody we cannot succeed at what we want to do. We cannot have a safe, welcoming, equitable county if people don't feel supported by their law enforcement and if law enforcement isn't supported by their community. And so building that bridge, I think, is really where your challenge sits. And I also think that you are the perfect person to be on that bridge, helping to build it. So congratulations. And we will, of course, have lots more opportunity to work through these challenges together. And I look forward to doing that. Thank you. Thank you both. Councilmember Perry. Thank you. One thing that I am really encouraged by is experiencing interim share of call Tindal. Your willingness to work on behavioral health issues which are very, very close to my heart. So and it's a national crisis and a statewide crisis and we absolutely can do better. And so in the efforts of that, we're working on in District three to bring the police chiefs together, the fire chiefs together, and the sheriffs together. You representing? I am very encouraged by our recent meeting to look at radar as a co responder model, mobile integrated health model, looking at no wrong door in response as well, so that everybody can participate in ways that are meaningful to them. And while we figure out the lanes of fire and police and we figure out the gaps and the overlaps, and we identify the statistics and identify what's needed with all of these incredible efforts going on throughout these ten cities and unincorporated area. So and I'm very excited about Major Pingree and his promotion and working together with him as a representative for the unincorporated areas. So I just want to recognize that you were right on board right away in an area that is sometimes King County and cities can be a little middle school. You're not the boss army. And sometimes police and fire can do that. You're not the boss of me thing. So you just really stepped up in that terrific leadership and everybody willing to work together for the betterment of our family, our loved ones, our friends, our community members that really need to stay in each of our communities . So thank you for your leadership on that. And I feel very excited about the hands that we're in going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I do have a question and I am the sponsor of the motion, so I am very supportive. But as we all know, you're in a very, very tough position. And assuming that either claimant is confirmed, I think there will be continued attention on a lot of the high profile, very high profile officer involved shootings that have occurred within the King County Sheriff's Office. And now we're getting an inquest. Back after a long pause to hear about your thoughts on the inquest process and also how you will handle officer involved shooting investigations going forward if there are many more. Thank you. Question button. Yes, well, the first one on inquest, I'm supportive. I actually believe I mean, it is the public's opportunity to learn the facts related to an incident where officers used force in somebody's life, then did so. I think that's key. Right. We need to be able to provide that information to the public so the inquest process is happening and I support that. Now, to your question about officer involved shootings, where and how we would investigate? I think you're all aware of the state law reforms which now prohibit law enforcement agencies from doing their own investigations. So we are subject to state law, which means an independent investigative team would conduct any officer involved shooting. So we had a recent shooting the day after I was named as deputies nominee. The next day, our SWAT team during the execution of a mission. A step was dead. So the Valley Independent investigative team was at the South End. It depends on where the event happens, depends on who investigates. So in this case, that team investigated, which means by state law, I don't have any control over the investigation. Or as of January one of this year, I don't even get a briefing by that investigative team because they the rule makers, the lawmakers wanted a true independent investigation. I have minimal information. So I do think that's important for me to come out as the sheriff, as I did in this one, to say, you know, we had this event. This is what my people were doing. The subject is dead. None of our people were injured. But they're this other investigative team is doing the criminal investigation because any time somebody loses their life in resort, it's considered a homicide. I mean, even if it was in the execution of official duties. So it is investigated. So what I can do is what's called an administrative review, which is an administrative review into the events. But that is not something that we we have to keep that separate from the criminal so we cannot like contaminate because otherwise, if there were an issue of any conclusions by the independent team that charges should be filed, that we have interfered, then it could, you know, impact. So I don't really get to do much with with those types of shootings. So except to cooperate and stay in my lane. Thank you very much for your response. Are there any other questions? And I'm sure of culture. I'd like to now move on to take action. So I am a big gun supporter.
Speaker 2: Sorry. Thanks. The inner circle turned out great to see you. Thanks. I appreciate there's been a lot of the dialog back and forth on important issues. I look forward to supporting your your nomination appointment. My question is, you know, there's been a surging crime problem with gun violence here in the community. More than 460 shootings last year and the murder rate is way, way up. What is your sort of. Two or three things that you are sort of planning on doing to to really take on that issue and try and reduce crime. Sort of the center, I think, centerpiece and arguably the.
Speaker 3: Most important part.
Speaker 2: Of your job, I would say. What is your basic strategy on that?
Speaker 0: So thank you for that question because you are right. That is that's the bread and butter of what we do is reduce crime and the fear of crime. And so Key is partnering with other law enforcement agencies for insurance. And we have our I already do that working with the other chiefs around the area. But I think also something that's important is working with community because often they are aware and know where the issues are in their communities. And so we need to work with them to help identify what those are and what are potential solutions to those issues. The third thing is we need to use data right where these things happening. What are the indicators around what is happening? So I think all of those things that's kind of simplistic, short answer, but there's so much more and I know there are supports being created, which I think is very great, that that's an opportunity for our best and brightest to get together, to try to figure out how to do it. But this is really a societal issue, and I appreciate that. It's it's not just on law enforcement, right? There's a lot of different components to it, a lot of different players. But we need to be front and center and involved. And that does also speak to officer presence. And with a 113 Commission vacancies, it's a little more difficult to have the type of presence and the patrolling in the communities which could deter potential crime. So we are working hard to staff up, but those are some of the things I will be working on with my leadership team and in the community and with with you, the Council on the Executive as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you for that response. I appreciate that. And, you know, my my job is to help you succeed at yours. And whatever I can do, perhaps this council can do to get those hundred and 13 individuals hired in the office staffed up with you, come up with creative ways or thoughtful approaches to try and do that, perhaps best practices being used across the country right now. So we've got a good, robust, highly functioning sheriff's office. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: I thank you, Councilmember Dunn. And I believe we will now go on to take action on the proposed motion. 2020 20191 I'd like to hear more from our interim share, but we are way past adjournment. Time for the meeting. So with that, Councilmember Dunn, would you please move this action? Because I am the sponsor of the motion.
Speaker 3: Very well.
Speaker 2: I would move to approve Protocol Tindal as our sheriff and director of the department, as has been briefed and provide present to the council.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Councilmember Dunn and Nick Bellman, would you please just remind us very briefly about Amendment one?
Speaker 2: Yes. Amendment One would outline the language of the proposed motion with that charter, section 340, as well as charter section 350, 2040. We just because we haven't done this appointment in a long time, we wanted to make sure we got the language exactly right.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any questions about amendment number one? Okay. Consider it done.
Speaker 1: Google Amendment one.
Speaker 0: Amendment has been moved. Any comments? All in favor indicate by saying i.
Speaker 1: I, i i in.
Speaker 0: Person of the amendment has been adopted. We now have the title amendment counselor. We can.
Speaker 2: Move to 1.
Speaker 0: To 1. A title amendment one has to move to any comments. Questions on paper indicate by saying I, I, I say no to the amendment has been adopted. Is there any further discussion on proposed motion 2020 20191 as amended? Come back and ask.
Speaker 1: If it's okay with you. I'd like to have my name added as a co-sponsor to the motion and encourage my colleagues to join in the show of unanimity by doing the same if they're so inclined.
Speaker 2: Okay. Now add me.
Speaker 0: At me to. Damond City Council member. But did she? I think Councilmember Perry and Councilmember Cycle. I also feel like things that irk Councilmember Van right there as well. Okay. Very good. Thank you. And I will just say I am enthusiastically supporting the confirmation of the nomination of sheriff. And I'm sure Cole turned out to be unacceptable, sheriff. And since the time is right, we will go ahead and have a group called The Roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember by the Chin by Councilmember DEMBOSKY.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: As a member done by Councilmember McDermott. Councilmember Perry. I don't remember up to the councilmember, but by about one. I council member starline. I. Madam Chair, on the borders. I know North and West Council member MacDermid. Excuse me. Okay. Thank you all with a vote. We have approved proposed motion 2020 20191 as amended. And if there are no concerns with placing this on the consent calendar, we will expedite this motion with the due course recommendation for the consent agenda to the May 24th Council meeting. That's next Tuesday because there is some urgency here. We want to have our confirmed sheriff in place. Any comments? Okay. Very good. That concludes the agenda items on our agenda. I apologize for going past our usual time, but we did accomplish quite a bit.
|
Motion
|
A MOTION confirming the appointment of Patti Cole-Tindall as the chief officer of the department of public safety.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_04062022_2022-0154
|
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. So, charcoal wells. We have no one here to provide dollar, but thank you very much. Then we will not delay public comment and we will go directly to number five on our agenda, the consent agenda and that is item five is related to extending the acceptance appointment of Dennis motion as the acting director of the King County Department of Public Health. This is pro forma. We've done this already, and this motion would extend his contract through June 23rd. We do have, as Sam Shearer, two groups. If there is need for that, does anybody have any questions? Okay. We will. Go ahead. I'd like to. A motion to move the consent agenda.
Speaker 1: So move, Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Good. And we're going to have to call the roll on the Senate agenda, which is to approve proposed motion 2020 20154.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your call, Wells. Councilmember Dejean. Councilmember Dunn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember DEMBOSKY.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember McDermott.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Councilman Perry.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Council member at the.
Speaker 3: High.
Speaker 2: Council member Andre Bauer. Councilmember Sala.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Charcoal wells.
Speaker 0: Hi. We got set.
Speaker 2: Seven eyes, no nose. And Councilmember Balducci and Councilmember Bond.
Speaker 1: Excuse.
Speaker 0: Sorry to hear what I have that we have approved. Proposed motion 2020 20154 and will send this motion with the due pass recommendation by the consent agenda to the comment to councilman. We will now turn to item number six on our agenda.
|
Motion
|
A MOTION approving the extension of the executive's appointment of Dennis Worsham as acting director of the King County department of public health.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_04062022_2022-0123
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. We will now go on with item number eight and another chapter, both of which will be relating to the district court redistricting. And we're taking these two items together, but we will take action separately. They will be briefed by Erika Neumann on our central staff. We must bring back to Wilson. She has supervisor with King County Elections, an assistant presiding Judge Horne with the District Court to answer any questions. There will be a verbal amendment by Councilmember Bell to cheat that. We will get to that in a few minutes. And with that, Erika, please go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: Erika Neumann, Counsel, Central Staff The Items to propose ordinance 2020 2012 to begin on page 18 of your packet. As you all know, District Court is the County Court of limited jurisdiction and has the responsibility for traffic infraction.
Speaker 1: Small claims and misdemeanor criminal offenses.
Speaker 0: In November 2021, the Council adopted Ordinance 19358.
Speaker 1: Which authorizes.
Speaker 0: District Court to provide services to the City of Pacific under.
Speaker 1: The Interlocal Agreement. And the city started receiving services.
Speaker 0: In January of.
Speaker 1: 2022.
Speaker 0: The proposed ordinance would implement the changes to the King County District Court redistricting plan. On March 7th, the county's district redistricting committee met to review the.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 0: County's district court plan, as required by the state statute and county code. And they, in that unanimously approved the amendments to the district court district map, which would include voters.
Speaker 1: From the City of Pacific.
Speaker 0: That reside in Pierce County. And as you mentioned, in its current form, the proposed ordinance has a blank online line, which is on page 21 for the date that the committee has a blank. We need to have a verbal amendment to fill in that blank with the date of March 7th, which is the date the committee approved the amendments. I can pause right there or I can continue on to explain. Ordinance. Oh, one, two, three. Thank you. I wonder if there are any questions. And Kirk Newman. Okay. Let's go on and have fun. 2020 201232790123. What authorized the changes to the King County District Court Southeast Electorate District to include.
Speaker 1: The City of Pacific?
Speaker 0: The changes to the Southeast Electorate District are reflected in the attachment to the proposed ordinance. As far as timing goes, the Council is required to adopt amendments before May 1st of 2022. And if I recall correctly, if the.
Speaker 1: If the.
Speaker 0: If we take action today, the Council can take final action on April 19, full council meeting, which would allow time for the ordinance to go into effect prior to candidate filing, which begins on May 16. Madam Chair, that concludes my remarks. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Kurt Newman under all measures. And we do have Wilson and George Ryan with.
Speaker 1: Us.
Speaker 0: Bearing questions of them or if they would like to send. Good morning, Mrs. Judge, and thank you for considering our ordinance and we are delighted to have both the city of Pacific and the city of are going to join the District Court as contract cities. And this is just a technical correction to make sure that all of the city and Pacific citizens have the ability to elect their judges who are hearing their cases. And so we appreciate your time and the willingness of the district in committee and the council to make this correction so that everybody has a say in who their judges are. So thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you for being with us today. Are there any questions of Judge Hahn or Mr.. Okay. With that comes the rebels. You are the sponsor of both measures. And we will first take the proposed ordinance. 2020 2012, two. Would you like to make a motion and then speak to it? And we do have the rebel amendment to the offer as well. Very good. Thank you. Chair Caldwell's I would move adoption of proposed ordinance 2020 20122. The motion has been made. And would you like to move the amendment? Yes. The amendment is a verbal amendment to insert the date March 7th, 2022, as the date the redistricting committee considered and unanimously approved the amendments to the district court districts map this week. Thank you. Is there any question on the amendment? Please all in favor of the oral and verbal amendments indicate by saying i, i, I must say now the amendment has been adopted and we now have because proposed ordinance 2022 zero 122 as amended Councilmember Belge and comments. The only thing I would add to what's already been said is that this was really kind of a life experience. It takes a great deal of effort to amend these maps. It doesn't happen very often. And so you had to pull together a whole convening of various members of different jurisdictions. Many of our mayor showed up in person to take this vote, judges from the district court and others. So it was really nice to see the kind of the community of the district court come together to support making this boundary adjustment so that the the residents of this area can vote for their own judges. And I think I think it was said, but just to make clear, Pierce County has to do a mirror action and they are on path to take this same action in Pierce County to just sort of make sure that it is fully approved. I don't question. So councilmember built into the comments.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, I.
Speaker 0: Think please call it the wrong.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Chair Cornwall Council Member DG.
Speaker 0: II.
Speaker 2: Council Member DEMBOSKY.
Speaker 1: DEMBOSKY I.
Speaker 2: Council Member Then.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Council member McDermott. High Council member Perry. A Council member at the grow.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Council member. Bond Drive Bower.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Council member, Sally.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Chuckles. I never was. Nice eyes and no nose and nice kids.
Speaker 0: I'm okay with our vote. We have approved proposed on the 2022 zero 122 as a member. And unless there are concerns, we will send this ordinance with the due recommendation for the consent agenda to the April 19 Council meeting. And we will now. I will mount as Councilmember Bell to try to move proposed ordinance 2022 zero 123. Thank you. I so move.
Speaker 1: On to.
Speaker 0: Are there any comments you would like to make now? This is just the second action required to complete the approval process and I urge your support. Thank you. Okay. Are there any questions or treatment that will please call the roll?
Speaker 2: Thank you. Call us. Council members.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Council member DEMBOSKY.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Council member Dunn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Mike Berman.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Council member Perry High Council member at the growth high. Council member Van de Boer. I council members thoroughly.
Speaker 1: Five.
Speaker 2: Chuckle. Well, I it won't is my eyes, no nose and no excuse.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very much. And with our vote, we have approved proposed ordinance 2020 20123. And with our than concerns, we will send this ordinance with the best recommendation for the consent agenda to the April 19th Council. And I would like to make one correction. I believe I referred to our analyst Derek and woman as clerk. That was unintentional and I apologize for that. And we will now move on to item number ten on our agenda, which is proposed motion see 2020 20153 that would declare a King County support for the Cities for Citizenship Initiative.
|
Ordinance
|
AN ORDINANCE relating to King County district court electoral district boundaries for 2022; amending Ordinance 16803, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.12.050.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_04062022_2022-0153
|
Speaker 0: I believe I referred to our analyst Derek and woman as clerk. That was unintentional and I apologize for that. And we will now move on to item number ten on our agenda, which is proposed motion see 2020 20153 that would declare a King County support for the Cities for Citizenship Initiative.
Speaker 1: And direct.
Speaker 0: The executive to sign the currency into the initiative and the initiative as the participating community. And we will have analyst Melissa Bailey brief us. We also have with this Nina Hashimi, who is the director of the Relations for the Executive Office and the Cities for Citizen Citizenship Initiative is a national initiative aimed at increasing citizenship for eligible permanent residents in the United States and encouraging cities and counties across the country to invest in citizen shift programs. So we will hear from Melissa there. And then Mina Hashimi is available for questions from council member Belgium is the sponsor of this legislation will also offer a verbal amendment to this one as well. Go ahead, analyst Bailey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Most Council Central Staff Materials for proposed motion 2020 20153 begin on page 39 of your packet. The proposed motion would declare King County support for the Cities for Citizenship Initiative and direct the executive to sign the county on as a participating community. It would also request the executive designate a county representative as the liaison to the initiative and express the county's intent to work collaboratively with both the national initiative and local community based organizations to increase citizenship. Immigrants and refugees in King County as well. Background cities for citizenship, as was noted, is a national initiative that works with both cities and counties to increase citizenship among eligible permanent residents in the United States. It goes by CPAC for short, started in 2014 and now has over 100 partnering communities across the country. In Washington state, that includes the cities of Kirkland, Redmond, Seattle, Tacoma and Yakima, as well as Kitsap County. The initiatives coordinated by the National Partnership for New Americans and chaired by the mayors of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles City is the founding corporate partner. Supercedes Primary Focus is on lawful permanent residents, also known as green card holders who are eligible to naturalize. In King County, there are approximately 75,000 lawful permanent residents eligible for naturalization. Moving to the analysis section of the staff report on page 42, local governments participating in the initiative receive free access to technical support, policy advice, best practices , research and demographic data and networking opportunities with other jurisdictions, all with the goal to increase the number of citizenship applicants. In return, the participating communities are encouraged to share information on their naturalization efforts, be an annual survey, participate in monthly partner calls and attend the initiative's annual municipal gathering. Local governments are also asked to provide a point of contact for the initiative. There are no membership or registration fees to join, and membership is not dependent on establishing certain programs or policies. CPAC states that participation is flexible and up to the capacity of the local jurisdiction. The proposed motion does direct the executive to designate a county representative to serve as a liaison. To see policy in the primary cost associated with the initiative would be the staff time necessary to participate. That said, executives have noted that while they have not yet developed an implementation plan, they believe these responsibilities would likely be handled by an existing FTT or TLT. The executive's office plans to work with the Office of Equity and Social Justice to identify the appropriate staff person to serve as the reason. That concludes my remarks, Madam Chair, I'd be happy to answer any questions. And as you've noted, we have executive staff here as well to help. Thank you. Are there any questions of analysts favor? And as mentioned, we have Nina Hashimi here from the Executive Office. And so, Director Hashemi, would you like to send. Thank you, Carol. Good morning, councilmembers. No further comments from me, but we appreciate council member Malcolm G sponsoring the motion and looks forward to partnering with the organization to organize the Minister and the Council should the proposed motion be passed. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Director How soon? Okay with that, let's go to Councilmember Belton. She'd like to make a motion and also speak to your legislation. Thank you very much, chair corrals and I'd like to move. Approval of motion 2020 20153. And then just to speak to it briefly. The report was was very it was thorough and good. We've been requested a number of times over the last few years to join this effort. It is a collaboration with some of the biggest jurisdictions in the country of which we are, of course, one. Several of our cities, as was reported, have joined already. And I know that this council is keenly aware of the challenges and the increased challenges that have faced the immigrant residents of our communities. This is one approach to one sector of that challenge, and it is the fact that there are many people in our county who are eligible for permanent citizenship who for one reason or another don't achieve that, that goal. And we know that people who don't attain citizenship are at a disadvantage or disadvantage legally with job opportunities and ultimately with economic opportunity and stability. And so this is a great opportunity for us to take the things that we are already doing. By the way, I want to remind the council that we approved in recognition of the fact that we have approved a number of things that make that address this exact problem, providing during the pandemic, $11 million in pandemic relief to immigrants and refugees, and $5 million to help defray the cost of applying for naturalization, both of which are right in line with the values of this organization that we're and collaboration that we are considering joining today. So I highly recommend that we continue down this path that we join with our colleagues in Seattle, Redmond, Kirkland and other places around the country in encouraging naturalization of those who are here, contributing to our communities and would benefit from completing their naturalization. And I urge your support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Eldridge, I am very excited about this legislation. I appreciate your two words. Would you? Are there any questions before we go on to the amendment? Councilmember Perry. Thank you, Chair Colwell. So just to be clear, the immigrants in our community, our immigrant community members pay taxes, correct?
Speaker 1: That's affirmative.
Speaker 0: Right. Okay. Well, I just wanted to acknowledge that. And I also want to say, I just think this is terrific. I love it when people are given more and more opportunities to move closer in and participate as deeply as possible in their communities for the better of all. And so where folks are willing to do that, I'm eager to do that. Immigrant and refugee community that I've experienced specifically in Bedford and Spanish district are some of the most patriotic, patriotic and actively engaged community members that I've experienced in in this last year especially. And I just think this is terrific.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Are there any other questions or comments?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Just a quick question. And I'm sure whoever wants to ask, is there a cost associated to the county with supporting this particular initiative? So you foresee.
Speaker 0: This from councilmember done. And so there is not. There's no there's no admission fee. We may decide to undertake activities, but we could decide that anyway. So. But there's no cost to join.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 0: Are there any other questions? Councilmember Bowdich, who would you please offer you an amendment? This is a verbal amendment. Verbal amendment. So I move that on line four of the motion. The number 190,000 be changed to 290,000. And I'm happy to explain. Please go ahead. So line four through six currently states, whereas there are approximately 190,000 lawful permanent residents in Washington State and over 75,000 lawful permanent residents eligible to naturalize in King County. That was just a typo. There are actually 290,000 lawful permanent residents in Washington state. So it's just a factual correction. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any questions on the amendment? It's all in favor of this rebel amendment. Please. By saying.
Speaker 1: I like any.
Speaker 0: Person.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Okay. The amendment is seconded, and we now will move to a roll call vote on motion 2020 20153 as amended. Councilmember Jenny Concluding Remarks. We can hear your muted. I couldn't unmute for some reason there. I have finally got it. Sorry. No, no, no. Urge support. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. When I called around, please call the roll out. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Joe Caldwell, council member about the chair i council member DEMBOSKY. I council member done by. Council member McDermott.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 2: Council member, Barry. I council member at the Grille, i. Council member, Andre Bauer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Council members, Caroline.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Chuckle. Well.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: The board is nice eyes. No nos and no excuse.
Speaker 0: Thank you. With our vote, we have approved proposed motion 2020 20153 as amended. And unless there are concerns, we will send this motion with the due process recommendation by the consent agenda to the April 19.
Speaker 1: Council.
Speaker 0: Meeting. And we are now on our final item item now, which is a motion sponsored by councilmembers Dunn and Dombroski that would request the executive to develop a comprehensive response to the crisis in Ukraine. We know that Executive Constantine has already announced and implemented many plans for welcoming and assisting refugees from Ukraine and for ensuring that we
|
Motion
|
A MOTION declaring King County's support for the Cities for Citizenship initiative and directing the executive to sign the county onto the initiative as a participating community.
|
KingCountyCC
|
KingCountyCC_03162022_2022-0051
|
Speaker 0: Any person in the minutes have been abducted. Well, now go to number five on our agenda, which is to confirm the appointment of Shawn Peterson to the King County Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Inclusion Task Force. And Shawn is representing the nonaligned he fund. The task force was established in 2000, meeting to develop a recommended countywide gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion strategy and work plan to implement the use of an additional gender designation or designations in all appropriate administrative processes and use by county departments. We have Sam Porter with us from our central staff to provide the briefing on this item, along with the appointee to answer any questions. Sam, I'll turn it over to you. And do we have Shawn with us?
Speaker 2: Yes, we do.
Speaker 0: You are as Shawn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Sam Porter, Council policy staff. The documents for this appointment began on page eight of your packet. Your summary of its course was very comprehensive. It was established through motion 15162 in June 2018. And they have the task force has been meeting in accordance with the initial framework that was adopted through motion 15623. According to executive staff, they are anticipated to complete their work in mid 2022. The proposed motion would appoint Shaun Peterson. She currently serves as the Gen seven program coordinator for the Lahey Fund. According to the organization's website, she has more than five years of experience in youth program development and implementation, including a program called Native Girls Code, which is focused on computer coding, coding and culturally relevant STEM content for Native girls. That concludes my remarks. Sean is with us along with Mina from the Executive Office.
Speaker 0: There and Max. Sam, before we proceed. Are there any questions of Sam? Okay. Well, welcome, Sean, to our committee of the home meeting and congratulations on your appointment. And I would like to invite you to tell us a little bit more about yourself and about why you wanted to be serving on the task force.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Chairwoman. My name is Sharon Peterson. She her.
Speaker 0: Channel.
Speaker 2: Baby.
Speaker 0: Will come.
Speaker 2: From Vancouver Island, Canada. And I work for the not only fund. And my current role actually is community partnerships manager. I just changed roles and this work is very important to me because within my organization I'm really trying to bring forward LGBTQ.
Speaker 0: Lens to separate lens.
Speaker 2: As our organization historically has served native women and girls and as a queer identifying person, it's really important.
Speaker 0: That we're visible.
Speaker 2: And that we have a place. And so I was.
Speaker 0: Approached to sit.
Speaker 2: On this task force because there weren't very many there wasn't another indigenous person sitting in that space. And I think it's really important for me as an indigenous woman living in the city of Seattle to have a voice when it comes to these kinds of things as relates to the county.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And congratulations. Have you been able to attend any church? Yes, I.
Speaker 2: Have been attending regularly for probably the past three months.
Speaker 0: Terrific. Yeah. Is there anything you would like to share with us about your impressions of the task force and thing that you particularly want to work on or emphasize?
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. I have really been impressed with my colleagues in the committee and how much experience that they have, and it's a variety of communities represented, which I think is really important. And a lot of, you know, communities in this area that are marginalized and really trying to put a voice to how these things are implemented, and then also how one of the mechanisms at which any of our recommendations are put into place in the county, and that those that we see those through and that we have a way to understand. And once we put things forward, like how it's actually.
Speaker 0: Going to be done.
Speaker 2: Is something we just variously.
Speaker 0: Talking about. Anchor. Are there any questions of Sean or comments anybody would like to make on the council? Let me. Constantly rebounding.
Speaker 2: I was just a thumbs up. And I thank you for serving. Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 0: Yes, very much. Thank you for serving. Councilmember Dombroski was the honor, I should say. Yes. Councilmember Brenda Dombroski was the one who actually came up with the idea for this task force and got it going. And Councilmember Dombroski, give anything you want to comment on.
Speaker 1: I just will thank Shawn for their service and move approval of the motion if you're ready.
Speaker 0: Okay. The motion has been made. Before we go to that. I'm wondering, though, if Meena from the executive office would like to say anything. Good morning, Mina. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 2: For the record, Mina Hashemi with the executive offer. We are excited about Sean and that path for our staff. Significant time in 2021 doing outreach to ensure that we had a diverse and full task force. And we are excited about Sean's experience and the passion that she'll bring to this work.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else? The motion has been made to a proposed motion 2020 20051 to give it a due course recommendation. Does anyone else on the committee want to say anything else? Okay with that, could you please call the role and propose motion 2020 20051. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council member Banducci. Hi. Council member Dombrowski, I. Councilmember Dunn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: And some of them.
Speaker 1: McDermott, I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Berry.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember at the ground. Councilmember Bond. Ray Bauer. Council member. Caroline.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Madam Chair, on the board is ayes. No, no. Council member. Bond. Bye bye. Excuse. Thank you. Council member. And can vote before the meeting screen. That. Please let us know. Thank you, Rick. Our vote. We have approved proposed motion 2020 2005. When we will send this motion with the due pass recommendation for the consent agenda to the April 30 Council meeting on stemming objections. Great. Congratulations, Sean. We will be taking this up on the consent calendar. You do not have to be at the meeting to speak. And if you are wanting to be there, you can tell them otherwise. And we will, of course, let you know after the fact as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you all so much. And thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great. Okay. Our next item, number six is a briefing on a 2020 to be 0039 with King County Regional Homelessness Authority. Providing an update will be Mark Jones Chief Executive Officer and also Felicia Sauceda, who is Executive Director.
|
Motion
|
A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Shawn Peterson to the King County gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force, representing the Na'ah Illahee Fund.
|
KingCountyCC
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.